Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats bounced 10% in the polls after their inclusion in the first three way leaders’ debate in British history. Will Maltese third parties break the mould too if given similar treatment, asks JAMES DEBONO?
One thing is sure. It was the inclusion of Nick Clegg in a pre-electoral debate with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Opposition leader David Cameron which changed the script of a foretold general election in which David Cameron was set to win by a landslide against a Labour Party suffering from power fatigue.
Or so have the polls said for the greater part of the past three years. But it took just a few minutes of real media democracy, in which – for the first time in their history – the Liberal Democrats had the same exposure as the leaders of the two big parties, to change the contest in to an unpredictable three horse race.
So would the same exposure for a Maltese third party yield a similar result in the local context?
The sheer presence in the debate gave Clegg the status of an equal and a contender, an exposure which third parties in Malta rarely get.
One may well point out that unlike AD, which scored 1.3% of vote in the last general election, the Lib Dems (heirs of Lloyd George’s liberal party which dominated 19th century British politics) are no minnows, having won a record 62 seats and the support of a fifth of the British population in the last election.
In fact, the UK Independce Party which gained an extraordinary 17% in the latest European election, as well as the UK Greens which gained 9% in the same elections were excluded from the British debate: not to mention the far right BNP whose inclusion risked giving legitimacy and exposure to a racist party.
One may well argue that AD or any other potential third party would need a big electoral bounce before claiming the equal media access the Liberal Democrats won in the UK.
But AD was still deprived access following its own big bounce in the 2004 MEP election, when it scored a tenth of voters’ preferences.
And the big bounce is all the harder to achieve because of the complete dominance of the airwaves by the two big Maltese parties who – unlike their UK counterparts – even own TV stations of their own.
But visibility on its own would count for nothing if a party does not address the concerns of the audience and if the third party appears shallow and amateurish.
In this sense Clegg was lucky to address an audience largely disillusioned by a political class tainted by parliament’s expense scandals, which was disposed to listen to a third party.
But Clegg was far from the outraged populist set to capitalise on popular anger. In fact this could be the secret of his success. To their credit the liberal democrats have achieved their big bounce by sounding more responsible and more policy-oriented than the other two parties.
In fact they remain the most pro-European and the most immigrant friendly of the UK’s parliamentary parties. They also speak of hard choices on both the spending and taxation front.
In some ways the inclusion of a third party in a three way debate may well expose the Maltese equivalents of the major British parties to the similar contrasts emerging from the British debate.
It was Nick Clegg’s sense of responsibility and his principled stance on taxation which exposed the wishy-washy positions of David Cameron, whose brand of “progressive conservatism” promises less taxes for all as well as better public services, without explaining where the money will come from except by hinting at unspecified spending cuts.
It is not hard to imagine a centre left party like AD launching a similar scathing attack on Labour leader Joseph Muscat, if a similar debate ever takes place in Malta.
And although belonging to opposite camps, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi shares Brown’s predicament as the leader of a party suffering from fatigue after three consecutive electoral victories, facing the onslaught of a younger, dynamic political opponent who, till just a week ago, seemed to have upstaged him.
In fact Clegg’s ascent in the polls might well have been a godsend for Brown for Labour can benefit if voters drift to the Lib Dems instead of to the “progressive conservatives”.
This effect could be amplified by the first past the post electoral system through which Labour could still win more seats than the conservatives even by getting less votes.
Similarly, in Malta a three-way debate would help AD absorb part of the shift from the Nationalist to the Labour party even if AD has always been stronger among new middle class voters who traditionally vote for the PN.
One notable difference between AD and the British Liberal Democrats is that the latter are more of a catch-all centrist party appealing to middle of the road voters in a way that they can compete with Labour in its industrial heartlands, while still holding on to seats in southern rural Britain.
Elsewhere in the continent, despite their roots in the radical left, Greens have also been able to appeal to woo middle class voters with their future oriented vision of a green economy and socially progressive values.
Striking this balance will be AD’s greatest challenge in the next three years even if this task is more daunting in a country were the middle class tends to be more conservatives.
Labour leader Joseph Muscat might well learn from Cameron’s mistake by giving more importance to substance and policies. Like Cameron, Muscat’s popularity might have peaked too early. But as the election approached voters started to question what lies behind Cameron’s pretty looks.
Surprisingly it was not Brown, with his no-nonsense managerial style, who started making gains, but Clegg in his role as the new man on the block.
Not surprisingly the reaction of the Tories to the Lib Dem bounce in the polls was similar to that of the Nationalist Party in Malta equating a vote for the Liberals as a vote to keep Labour in power.
Ultimately the biggest loser of the UK election could be the first past the post electoral system, in which each seat goes to the party scoring the highest number of votes in each particular locality. This system has traditionally penalised third parties. For although the Lib Dems won 22% of the vote, they only won 10% of the seats.
Although the Maltese electoral system is very different from the British one as it is based on proportional representation, it also militates due to a high district quota of 16% and the absence of a national threshold.
If the UK also opts for a system of proportional representation accompanied by a national threshold, Malta may well remain the last bastion of two-party dominance in Europe.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
