Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1170309
EVER paused to wonder why political parties make so many promises in their electoral manifestos… when they clearly have neither the inclination, nor even the logistical capabil- ity, of ever delivering on all of them? At the last election, for instance, both Labour and Nationalist parties engaged in their habitual 'electoral manifesto number-crunching game'. The PN's manifesto, we were told (boastfully by Beppe Fenech Adami, scornfully by One News) contained '320 pledges' in a '64-page docu- ment'… whereas Labour went to town with the fact that its own manifesto contained '667 promises' – more than double the PN's – spread out over no fewer than '171 pages' (all in matte gloss, too). Never mind that most of those 171 pages were actually just oversized images of the sort of 'smiley, happy people' you normally see in toothpaste ads; no, the real trouble is that it is very easy to fill up any number of pages with as many promises as the imagination can possibly concoct… when there is absolutely nothing that can ever compel your political party to deliver on any of those promises in the first place. In a sense, it's a bit like all those unnecessary stats we get bombarded with while watch- ing sports on TV: you know, how many 'offsides', 'throw- ins', 'corners', 'fouls', 'yellow cards', etc.. were awarded in the course of the game. Sorry, but… who the hell cares? In football, there is only one stat that matters: and it's how many goals were scored. Well, it's exactly the same with electoral promises. What counts is not 'how many were made' (still less 'over how many pages'); it's 'how many were kept'. Naturally, this question proves a lot harder to answer. Around halfway through 2015, the PL issued a somewhat puz- zling statement, boasting that 'the Labour government had already implemented 55% of its electoral promises'… after serving little more than 55% of its first term in office [note: at the time, we didn't know that the election would be called a year early.] Even back then, I remember thinking that it wasn't a very impressive achievement to be trumpeting in the first place… for reasons that would become pretty damn obvious, if you simply replaced 'delivering on electoral promises' with practi- cally any other task or objective you care to name. Like ordering a meal at a res- taurant, for instance. When's the last time a waiter ap- proached your table to inform you that those 'pan-fried veal cutlets' you ordered 10 minutes earlier were '55% of the way to being 100% cooked'? (Not be- cause you complained, or any- thing; but just like that: on his own initiative, for no particular reason whatsoever...) Or that bottle of cheap Italian plonk you ordered to wash those veal cutlets down with… would you expect the waiter to stop opening the bottle halfway, so that you can admire the sight of 55% of the cork protruding through the bot- tleneck? No, I suspect not. And it would be the same if you hired someone to paint your house, or fix the plumbing… or practi- cally any other odd-job you care to name. In all such cases, what any reasonable person would expect is for the job to get done, by the people they paid to get it done… with- out any unnecessary updates regarding the actual nitty-gritty of the 'job-doing' process itself. But when it comes to govern- ments, and the job we 'pay' them to do – in votes, not in cash (though who knows? There could be some of that, too) – it's as though a whole different system is suddenly in place. Let's face it: nobody would bat an eyelid if a government (any government) were to admit that it hadn't managed to implement 100% of its own manifesto, in the course of a single five-year term. And that's because none of us actually expects our gov- ernment to keep its word on everything. Unlike virtually any other contractual agree- ment, anywhere in the profes- sional world – because that's what an electoral manifesto is: a written contract with the electorate, signed on the ballot sheet – governments are from the outset 'exempt' from any li- ability in the case of contractual default. And instead of complaining about being ripped off (as we certainly would, in any other context)… we all either simply bow our heads and accept be- ing shafted; or, worse still, fall to our knees in grovelling grati- tude for the tiny percentage of that manifesto that was actually delivered within schedule. Viewed from that perspective, Labour's 2016 boast does start making a little sense. Hum- ble though the achievement may appear in itself [note: and regardless if it even stands up to scrutiny… which I don't have time to check right now]… 'getting 55% of the job done' is evidently still seen as a land- mark, by an electorate that has almost given up hope of ever seeing anywhere near 100% of what it had been promised. What doesn't happen very often, though, is for a govern- ment spokesperson to just come out and admit as much to our faces. "That promise? Oh, that was just something we said to keep this or that section of the electorate quiet… why, you didn't really expect us to deliver on it, did you?" Etc, etc. For this reason alone, I more or less welcomed Julia Farrugia Portelli's frank admission that her party had 'made a mistake' by referencing 'recreational cannabis' in its 2017 manifesto. It made a refreshing change from the usual waffle we have become accustomed to hear- ing in such circumstances (like, "It's the PN's fault!"… or… erm… "It's the PN's fault!"…. Oh, and did I already tell you that "It's the PN's fault'? Be- cause it is, you know…", Etc., etc). There is, however, a tiny little snag in Farrugia Portelli's argu- ment. She made that declaration in response to a very specific question by the presenter of on TVM's Ras Imb'Ras: Why has the Labour government not delivered on its electoral prom- ise to 'start a discussion on the legalisation of cannabis use for recreational purposes?' Please note: 'Why has your government not kept its elec- toral promise?' Not: 'What was your personal, private opinion about that promise when it was made?' And it's an important distinc- tion, because… no offence or anything, but the 53+% that voted for the Labour party in the 2017, did so on the basis of its electoral manifesto… not on the basis of Julia Farrugia Por- telli's private, personal views on any given issue or controversy. So let's go back to that mani- festo, shall we? That's right, the one that contained 671 prom- ises across 171 pages… One of those promises (num- ber 16 of section 16, as it hap- pens) is that "the next step is to start a discussion […] about the use of cannabis for recreational purposes." The sub-heading is 'Sensitive and Necessary De- bates', and the overall section is entitled 'Civil Rights'. Everything about that elec- toral promise is rooted in the premise that legalisation and/ or decriminalisation of rec- reational drug-use is a Civil Rights issue; and that, as such, a debate is 'necessary', regard- less how 'sensitive' it may be to some people. Yet here we have the parlia- mentary secretary entrusted with this very reform – by a Prime Minister who is already on record stating that he agrees with legalisation of cannabis for recreational purposes – tell- ing us all, to our faces, that the original promise had all along been a 'mistake'. And instead of committing herself to implement it anyway, 24 OPINION maltatoday | SUNDAY • 22 SEPTEMBER 2019 Raphael Vassallo 'Mistake' or otherwise, Malta voted for a debate on cannabis legislation