|
The people have spoken. Analyses of the results revolve mainly on the different interpretations being given to the increased votes cast in favour of Arnold Cassola and Alternattiva Demokratika. The people returned a verdict which lowered the votes of the two major political parties in finite terms, Labour by 14,000 votes and the Nationalist party by 44,000 votes, when compared with the last general election. The PN registered its worst electoral performance since 1953! The Labour party, albeit winning the election, failed to achieve the absolute majority of votes. This result does not guarantee Labour success in four years time. Labour did however manage to get its voters out to vote. There was, however, certainly no shift to Labour.
Why did a substantial number of voters vote AD? Was it a protest vote? Was it a political statement against the dominant two party system? Was it a vote against the restructuring policy of the Government? What can be said with certainty is that many traditional voters of both parties and most especially those of the Nationalist Party did vote AD.
The interpretation being given by the Nationalist party is that AD voters are in fact Nationalists protesting against their Government as a result of the pain and anxiety being caused by government’s restructuring programme.
The corollary of such an argument being that like night follows day the protestors will return to their natural home come the next general election. In the meantime Lawrence Gonzi asserts that is ‘it is business as usual.’ The Nationalist Party must be very careful of this line of thinking. They may be reading the message sent by the electorate wrongly.
An analysis of the vote requires deeper thought. The vote first of all, confirms yet again that with the passage of each election the number of floating voters is increasing. This symbolises a maturing electorate less willing to vote in a strictly traditional tribal manner. It is the first genuine crack in the two party dominant edifice. Last Thursday’s editorial in In-Nazzjon stated that many of the AD votes were not transferred to one of the two political parties as voters stopped after expressing their preference for Cassola.
This view is in clear contrast with the opinion of the Prime Minister that a very high percentage of Cassola’s votes carried on to the Nationalist party. It will never be possible with certainty to identify where the second preference votes of AD went.
As expected, the blame game has started and Alternattiva is blaming the Nationalists for Cassola not being elected since Nationalists voted in accordance with the wishes of their Leader who advised them to vote only for the eight Nationalist candidates. The PN, on its part, blames protest voters for electing a Labour candidate as they should have given their first preference to a Nationalist candidate.
The fact remains that a candidate winning 23,000 votes was not elected and this is a clear indictment of our electoral system. Persons who voted for Cassola are right to feel short-changed by the system and AD now have a clear moral case for electoral reform.
Many a voter is feeling disenfranchised, after all it is clear that Cassola should have been and could have been the fifth elected candidate.
This election should serve as a catalyst to initiate a further round of discussion among the political parties to fine tune the electoral law. An equitable solution must be found whereby all votes cast are fully represented.
Within the Nationalist Party there is the need for much soul searching. Many of the AD votes must have originated from the liberal wing of the party which feels un-represented in the Nationalist Party’s higher echelons. Too often one hears traditional PN voters from the more comfortable sectors of society lamenting that this is no longer their party. It is no longer the party they knew.
This lack of connection between the party and the middle class needs to be addressed urgently. It is the middle and upper-middle class that have been the traditional backbone of the PN. Losing this sector would spell electoral disaster for the Party.
Lawrence Gonzi should make this his top priority.
Malta’s sixth seat in the 2009 election, comes too late for Arnold Cassola. With six seats, the quota would have come down to 34,000 from 41,000, still a long way for Profs Cassola but close enough for comfort.
Had it been a certainty before the European elections the sixth seat would have given Lawrence Gonzi some mileage. The conclusion of cohesion funds for our Island state is very good news too. Nevertheless, the fledgling premier merits a well done for these two specific achievements.
The Brussels meetings brought together all heads of state. Dr Gonzi, accompanied by his foreign minister John Dalli and the permanent representative to the commission, Mr Richard Cachia Caruana agreed to the final wording of the Constitution.
The historical implications of this Constitution should not be underestimated. It will take some time before the subtle federalism of Europe digs in despite the reluctance of Britain and other member countries.
Where would we be today if Malta had missed the boat and remained out of this European experience?
|
