Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1455666
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 FEBRUARY 2022 8 INTERVIEW ments, in the country? Not really, no. The difference is that we are making those arguments on a polit- ical level; and they [NGOs] are making them at the level of civil society. They are two sides of the same coin: which are both essential - independently of each other – but at the end of the day, also complementary… How, then, do you interpret the fact that ADPD has remained more or less static: i.e., representing roughly 1.9% of the electorate? With so many people now openly agreeing with you: shouldn't AD- PD be performing better at the polls? The difficulty is that, sometimes, peo- ple tend to get cold feet. Bear in mind that, in different elections, our sup- port-levels have been different too. This is something that happens everywhere in the world, not just in Malta. People tend to assign different priorities, to different elections. So far, our best election result was 2013: when we got 1.8%. Our current polling is slightly better, at 1.9%. Gener- ally – and I hope it remains the same, this time – the polling rate, in our respect, turns out to be slightly lower than the re- sult we effectively get. Earlier you mentioned 'cold feet'; i.e., that people may be 'afraid' to vote AD- PD. Now: I remember the 1992 election – the first-ever contested by AD – and there was certainly a lot of pressure along the lines that 'a vote for AD is a vote for Labour', etc. But times have changed since then. Are those concerns still valid today? Do you feel that the same pressure still exists? So far, it doesn't seem to have start- ed… yet. But generally, that attitude only manifests itself when there are in- dications that the big parties are close to each other, in the polls. Obviously, the fact that they are not currently close to each other, could be helpful in our re- gard. Because the element of fear might be lessened… This is also because our electoral sys- tem attaches a lot of weight to first-count votes. At the end of the day, Parliament is a reflection of first-count votes… but only when no more than two parties are elected. Because as I said also at the launch: the proportionality mechanism [whereby the Constitution supplies ad- ditional seats, to form a House majority] applies only to the two main parties – and it has been applied, in different elec- tions – but it doesn't apply, in our case. And I've already given notice: if there is need, I will go to the Constitutional Court to challenge the proportionality mechanism… It's not just ADPD that is affected by that, however. Unlike previous elections – where AD tended to be the only other party on the ballot sheet – there are now several smaller parties: a fact which can only makes it likelier, for the mechanism to actually be applied… Well, the indications in all previous elections have always been that we are the front-runners, of the third parties… … do you feel that's still the case today, though? That's what the polls indicate. Now: I don't know what might happen in the fu- ture. Our result could be better than that; it could be worse. A lot of things might happen, by election day. What I can say, however, is that if we manage to elect a single seat in this election… then the pro- portionality mechanism will not work. And if we get roughly the same result as usual, or slightly better – for instance, 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 votes – but don't elect any seats… then all those votes will end up not being represented in Parliament. They'd be wasted, you mean… No, they would not be wasted. I will do my utmost, to make sure they are NOT wasted. But what I really meant is that those votes get discarded, by an electoral system that gives more weight to first- count votes. But I am insisting, as from now, that when the readjustment calculations are made, [those 5-7000 votes] must be tak- en into consideration. The probability, however, is that the Electoral Commis- sion will not take them into considera- tion, because their hands are tied by elec- toral law… Isn't there a precedent, though? When the Labour government challenged the proportionality mechanism in court, over the 2017 result, it used very similar arguments to the ones you are making now… The arguments were not all that similar, no. At the time, the government argued that the Opposition should not have been awarded any extra seats, because there already was a third party in parlia- ment. But technically, that wasn't true. Technically, they [independent MPs Marlene and Godfrey Farrugia] were still part of the Nationalist Party; having been elected on the PN ticket. That is, in fact, why Labour lost that case… My argument, on the other hand, is that: if the final result is not propor- tional, and the votes that we gain are not taken into consideration, in the re- adjustment… I will go to the Constitu- tional Court for satisfaction, and ask for a remedy that respects [the principle of] proportionality. I want to be clear about this, from now. On a different, but related note: ADPD's entire platform is rooted in the concept of a coalition, whereby different par- ties forge alliances through compro- mise. So… why is Malta's 'third party force' still so fragmented? Why, for instance, are three small parties – AD- PD, Volt, and Arnold Cassola – all com- peting against each other, on the same districts? Unfortunately, there is fragmentation. And in the case of Arnold Cassola… you know why, too. Cassola wasn't expelled from the party; he left… [because] he finds various policy issues objectionable. But I cannot hijack democracy for any- body, in the party. It was a decision he took for himself; nobody imposed it up- on him. Given, however, that the disagreement only really concerned one issue – abor- tion – couldn't some form of compro- mise be reached? Did you try building bridges, for instance? All I can say, to that, is: I have not con- tributed anything – anything at all - to the burning of those bridges. Fair enough. But assuming, for argu- ment's sake, that you do manage to elect a seat in this election: how do you envisage the possibilities that would arise, through ADPD's presence in par- liament? What sort of alliances – and compromises – would you be willing to make? Let me start with number one: the roadmap, is our electoral manifesto… But… if nobody's seen that, yet… Now, don't keep harping on about that. As I said before, our electoral manifes- to contains all the policies we have been talking about so far. It's unfair of you, to talk that way. Because even the Labour Party – and just look how long it's been talking about things – hasn't published its electoral manifesto, either. For all its talk of 'new economic policies'; it still doesn't have anything down in writing. And nor has the PN [at the time of this interview]. The reality is that no electoral mani- festo is ever published, at such an early stage: less than one week into the cam- paign […] All the same, however, our policies are generally well-known. We are associ- ated with various things – mainly, the environment – but we are also the only party to speak out against, for example, the unbridled application of Facial-Rec- ognition Technology; we are the only party to insist on an end to the Golden Passport Scheme… because both Labour and PN are in favour: they only disagree on certain minor details, here and there. We, on the other hand, have been con- sistently against the scheme from the moment it was launched: in 2014. So when I say that the 'roadmap is our manifesto': it means that there are some fundamental issues that, to us, are too important to change – and people out there know well what those issues are - and there are other, less important issues on which we would be willing to compromise. PHOTO: JAMES BIANCHI / MALTATODAY