Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1130632
14 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 16 JUNE 2019 ANALYSIS THIS is the picture of Maltese democ- racy after last month's midterm elec- tions: a strong government enjoying an unassailable lead, an Opposition in dis- array after being reduced to its lowest score since 1951, weak and fragmented third parties operating against a back- drop of sustained economic growth, growing social inequalities and envi- ronmental pressures. Some may see a strong risk of Malta becoming a Mediterranean version of Singapore, where the dominant power held power for 60 years. Yet many seem to forget that Labour has only been in power for six years. And apart from the bitterness felt by some Nationalists at seeing Labour taking the posture of a 'natural party of government' following 25 years of Na- tionalist rule between 1987 and 2013, are there any tangible signs of demo- cratic regression? The following is a list of the indica- tors of possible risks and how these are mitigated or augmented by Malta's in- stitutional set-up. 1. The scale of the gap between the two parties is unprecedented in Maltese history… Not only will it take a longer time for the PN to close the gap, but this in- creases the risk of implosion inside the Opposition's ranks which may tighten Labour's grip on power. By the end of this term Labour would have been in office for 10 years. To some extent this was the natural length of Maltese electoral cycles. In fact, old Labour lost its majority in 1981 and the Gonzi administration only lived on borrowed time after winning by 1,500 votes in 2008. Yet the PN did defy this trend, ruling for 25 years in the period between 1987 and 2013, a cycle which had only been interrupted by Sant's in- terlude between 1996 and 1998. What distinguishes Labour's victo- ries since 2009 is the sheer scale of the margin between the two big parties, ranging from 35,431 in MEP elections in 2009 to 47,116 in local elections in 2019. In contrast, the PN, despite winning a majority in six general elections out of seven between 1981 and 2008, nev- er did so with a majority greater than 13,000 votes. While normally a party could win power back with a 7,000 swing, as Sant effectively did in 1996, now a change of government would re- quire a swing of at least 22,000. This makes it even likelier for Labour to extend its cycle in government beyond the 10-year limit. Yet can Labour be blamed for win- ning big? And does this necessarily weaken democracy? Super-majorities can also have a healthy side – giving governments legitimacy to carry out major reforms without fearing losing power. This has been seen in civil lib- erties where Labour has changed the country from a conservative laggard to a leader in LGBTIQ rights, but it has so far failed to use this power to rein in powerful lobbies like the construction industry. Surely, when this is seen in the light of the institutional problems and the lack of checks and balances dating back to Independence, super-majorities may have unsavoury aspects, including the sense of impunity in cases of blatant incorrectness as was Panamagate. But part of Labour's success is also due to its lack of complacency in pow- er, shown in its 'can do' attitude and its ability to respond to criticism, to the extent that two ministers were forced to resign in Muscat's first term in of- fice. Muscat has also shown a remarkable ability to read the public mood. His decision to order a temporary stop to excavation works this week may have come late in the day, but confirms his flexibility in the face of public opin- ion. That was one reason why Mus- cat's conduct on Panamagate remains inexplicable to this day and perhaps a reason why it was forgiven by the elec- torate. 2. Opposition has never been as weak as it is now and third parties are in a mess. But one can hardly blame Labour for winning big An ineffective Opposition may actu- ally be bad news for the government of the day. Not only does government need an interlocutor when proposing major reforms as Muscat himself has recently acknowledged, but the ab- sence of a credible challenge from the Opposition may encourage complacen- cy in government's ranks, thus slowly eroding one of Labour's major assets; its 'can do' approach to government. Still, the major loss for the country would be the absence of proper scru- tiny of government in parliament. The risk would be aggravated by a down- ward spiral with consecutive defeats discouraging the regeneration of the Opposition with new talent, which can find more promising outlets in the pri- vate sector. The PN is already crippled by a mediocre shadow cabinet which is outclassed by Labour's current crop of ministers. The problem may get worse if the party does not get its act in or- der. Neither has the PN's decline been compensated by the growth of vibrant third parties. Apart from the fact that a nazi apologist earned the pole position in the league of political midgets, de- cent third parties have failed in filling the gaps on the spectrum left by Mus- cat's move to the political centre which was so effective in luring PN votes but which created disgruntlement on is- sues like low wages and environmental neglect. Their failure to leave a mark in MEP elections, where voters can vote third parties simply to send a message to government to wake up on major concerns, speaks volumes about their inability to target and communicate with potential voters. 3. Big business always favours political stability and continuity over disruption There is a risk of Labour becoming a vehicle of career and business advance- ment in a set-up where the lines be- tween business and government have always been blurred. The 'one-party state' Labour has only been in power for six years, but what if it remained in power for decades in a quasi 'one-party state'? JAMES DEBONO asks whether the widening gap between the PL and the PN, and the unresolved civil war inside the Opposition ranks, is paving the way for a benign hegemony of sorts… Malta faces similar challenges to those other Western democracies face, augmented by the partisan grip on power which pre-dates Muscat's government. But the super-majority knock-out effect remains to be seen