Undecided voters, like any other voter, are not the property of the party seeking their vote. Over the last few weeks, the PN has treated undecided voters as its property and tried to frighten them by admonishing them that if they fail to vote for it, some tragedy is awaiting this country. If I forget all political issues raised during the electoral campaign, something which stings me the most is political arrogance.
When a party is in government for a very long time, it is expected that it would start to believe that it is there forever. The MLP suffered from this syndrome in 1987 and the PN is suffering from it now. In 1987, the electorate chose to terminate a long lease of Labour government. I believe that it would do the same now. I have met quite a number of voters who are undecided because psychologically they have been bombarded over the years by certain sections of the media and State television that if they fail to vote the PN they would be committing a kind of unpardonable sin. But the undecided voters also include those who do not care much about politics and have made up their minds not to vote at all.
I also met individuals who voted the PN last time round and they will be voting Labour or another party simply because they believe in a strong democracy based on the alternation of power.
Apart from the undecided voters there will be the protest vote as well. Protest voters either tend to abstain from voting or they will switch party. The number may not be great but it is enough to influence the outcome of the election result.
The electoral campaign has been characterised by hefty spending by the PN and a more calm and less expensive campaign by the MLP. There is no doubt that the PN is a richer party and has more money to spend during election time. The intelligent voter would quickly discern how party funding could effect certain administrative decisions.
The recent scandal involving the granting of a building permit in an ODZ area in Safi raises a number of questions. How did MEPA come to the conclusion that a supermarket can harmoniously blend with a pristine natural habitat? The recent revelation of a permit for an open-air disco on the land of Pullicino Orlando in Mistra is also another attack on MEPA’s credibility. Even less credible is the PN’s promise that it would reform MEPA if re-elected. The recent developments in the MEPA saga has shown the government’s unwillingness to change its course. The resignation of the DCC members is a clear indication MEPA has miserably failed its mission of protecting the environment. How on earth can the government convince us that there is a political will to re-haul MEPA when it quickly appointed the DCC a few days before election?
It is a clear sign that DCC was re-appointed with emergency so that the PN would regain the vote of those who would be issued with a quick building permit on the eve of election. Gonzi’s assurance that the DCC was re-appointed so quickly so that the public would be served, in my opinion does not make much sense. There are hundreds, if not thousands of applicants who have been waiting for years for a merited building permit but their application has been ignored because they happen to be small fry. How then can it be that the DCC has been re-appointed in the name of efficiency?
An issue which has raised the eyebrows of many is the recent publication of a document explaining that cabinet had agreed in principle that healthcare would not remain free but it was not politically expedient to introduce a fee on medical care because of negative political repercussions. Healthcare is perceived in many developed countries as a social service.
I strongly believe in free healthcare. Although healthcare is sustained by taxation, those who have had the misfortune to be hit by a sudden illness know that it is better to pay some more taxation when they are healthy than to be asked to pay when they get ill and cannot fend for themselves. Some illnesses are too much expensive for anyone to cope with, even the well-offs.
After Gonzi denied that the matter was ever discussed in Cabinet, the MLP leader released the damning document revealing what really had happened. I do not reason out why there was such a blatant refusal by the PM that the topic was ever discussed when documents show otherwise. I do not believe that the report was just an erroneous compilation by a civil servant. If this civil servant has committed such a gross mistake why was he not asked to resign? Instead, government used this civil servant as a smokescreen.
Undecided voters should also consider the proposals being offered. The MLP has been working on its proposals for the last four or five years and basically are the suggestions of civil society which gave its input in the MLP document. On the other hand, the PN is offering proposals that could have amply been implemented over a twenty-year old period in government. A number of PN proposals have also been promised in previous electoral programmes but never implemented.
Last election was overshadowed and influenced by the question of Malta’s EU membership. This is no longer an issue and this time round the electorate is more concerned on having a more productive and clean government, on less corruption and a vision that would address the pre-occupations of people who have been fed-up of bureaucracy, heavy taxation and policies that have made Malta lag behind its European partners in important areas like economic development, economic growth, and education.
The choice is between having more of the same and a new and more energetic government.