Wenzu’s balancing act

Following the local election results and talk about electoral reform James Debono caught up with Wenzu Mintoff who is considered an expert on Malta’s electoral system

In 1994, when he was still Alternattiva Demokratika’s chairperson, Wenzu Mintoff represented his party in the Gonzi Commission where the first botched attempt at electoral reform took place. Twelve years later Wenzu Mintoff is serving his second term as a member in the Malta Labour Party’s national executive. Throughout our interview Wenzu Mintoff performs a balancing act between his sharp analytical skills and his political allegiance. He performs an even more amazing balancing act between his heartfelt belief in representation for political minorities and the MLP’s concern for governability.
The result of last Saturday’s local elections dominates the first part of the conversation. I point out that according to the PN’s Secretary General Joe Saliba one cannot speak of a shift in these elections due to the fact that a third of the electorate abstained from voting.
Can one therefore speak of a shift towards the MLP in these elections? Wenzu Mintoff, the political analyst observes that “one can neither say that there was a shift nor that there was no shift at all. As in every survey the greater the number of those who did not vote the more distorted the sample becomes. Yet among those who abstained one can find different categories. Among those who abstained, one finds old Labourites who were too sick too vote. In general elections these would have been taken to vote on their stretchers. There were also Nationalists who stayed at home to register their protest and there were also people dissatisfied with their local councils. Yet local council election results are still the best sample possible. It is clear that the MLP has not only won these elections but that it has surpassed it’s 2002 performance despite the PN’s dirty tricks in Zejtun and Marsa.”
Does Dr Mintoff agree with the Vice Prime Minister’s assessment that people voted with their feet? “I visited all polling booths on the day of the election. I met a number of Labour voters who had to be convinced to vote due to disagreements with Labour mayors.” I insist by pointing out that the low turnout was lowest in pro-PN localities like St Paul’s Bay. Could this be an indication that the MLP and AD failed to convince disgruntled Nationalists to vote for them instead of staying at home? In a disarming analysis Mintoff compares the change in the tactics employed by the PN in the June EP elections and this round of local elections.
“In last June’s election the PN choose to confront AD directly. This was a continuation of the strategy used on the eve of the 2003 election when Eddie Fenech Adami attacked AD in the Luxol ground. Apart from the guilt feelings generated by the Luxol speech, which was still very close, even more sympathy for AD was generated by the PN’s campaign associating AD with abortion. Last June the PN strategy backfired as it created an emotional wave of sympathy with a small party bullied by a big party. In contrast to last year, the PN kept a low-key campaign in which AD was ignored. The PN only attacked AD by using tangible images like Harry Vassallo’s outburst in Marsaskala.”
This time around, rather than focusing on AD the PN did everything possible to rubbish the MLP on the various proposals found in what Wenzu Mintoff refers to as the “red leaf document”. Despite emphasising the local nature of this vote the PN used national issues to attack the MLP. “Nationalist voters who stayed at home must have been influenced by this scaremongering campaign. Yet I know of some Nationalists who voted Labour this time round.”
Does Dr Mintoff see the risk of a trend in which MLP becomes a sort of ‘local councils party’ scoring points at the local level, but not at the national level. I cite MLP local victories in 2001 and 2002 before the 2003 watershed election. Wenzu is quick to point out that before the 1996 election there was a favourable trend in favour of MLP backed independents. “What happened in 1996 disproves your assertion, the success of independents before 1996 was followed by an MLP victory.” But what about Labour victories proceeding 2003? “In 2003 Europe was the dominant theme,” insists Wenzu Mintoff. But isn’t the MLP celebrating too early when one considers that the PN has another three years in power? Wenzu is not the type who goes ‘carcading’ after an electoral triumph. “Although it is only natural to celebrate, politics for me is not the band club’s march. I don’t see much room for triumphant speeches. Realism is needed, the road is still a long one and it is a tough one.”
I point out that the Nationalist government could be losing votes because it is taking hard decisions. In fact Gonzi is going as far as saying that his party is losing, but the country is winning. Wenzu Mintoff answers by questioning the very legitimacy of Gonzi’s government. “In a partly majoritarian system like ours people choose their government. In 2003 the Maltese voted to choose their Prime Minister. Nobody voted for Gonzi. The majority did not vote for the programme being implemented by Gonzi”. Dr Mintoff rhetorically asks “Does this government have an electoral mandate?” I interrupt Wenzu Mintoff to clarify whether he is calling for an early election. “I am not saying that an election should be held as soon as a Prime Minister is changed, but in a normal European country a government with a new unelected Prime Minister implementing a radically different programme than the one promised by his predecessor would seek an electoral mandate at the first opportune moment. Fenech Adami would not have been elected if he had presented the programme Gonzi is implementing now.”
Our discussion turns to one of Mintoff’s favourite subjects: electoral reform. I point out that in the aftermath of the local elections both the MLP and the PN have highlighted the need for electoral reform. While Sant has insisted on strict proportionality the Nationalist Party through an editorial in its daily paper has highlighted various issues ranging from a more representative system to voting rights of people residing in the EU. According to Dr. Mintoff “although the MLP and the PN are addressing the same issue, the two parties could be on parallel wavelengths.”
So what are the PN’s motives on this issue, I ask Wenzu. “The PN has realised that its support has decreased substantially. They know they will not recover a number of the votes lost in these elections. Therefore they want to widen their electoral base by giving the vote to all those living in Europe.” But don’t these people have a right to vote? “We are not talking of border line cases of those who work abroad on a temporary basis. These include people with no connection to Malta.”
According to Wenzu Mintoff the PN is also considering a scenario in which none of the parties wins an absolute majority but three parties are represented in parliament.
What will happen if none of the parties gets an absolute majority and more than two parties are elected to parliament? Mintoff explains that in this scenario the 1996 constitutional safeguards on governability will not apply and the party with the relative majority could end up in opposition.
Dr Mintoff is convinced that the PN has concluded that the MLP will either get an absolute or a relative majority in 2008. “In the case of the former scenario there is nothing much the PN can do but in the latter scenario, many other factors could come to play. The PN has always believed that votes for AD are ‘stolen votes’. The PN motive could be that of ensuring that votes for AD will be counted in the last count as it believes that a substantial number of these votes will transferred back to the PN. In that case in spite of being a minority party on the first count, the PN could win a majority on the last count.” Wenzu Mintoff is suspecting that the PN could once again be trying to use AD. “The instantaneous conversion of the PN from AD bashers to the proponents of representation for minorities baffles me”.
I point out that when he represented AD in the Gonzi commission AD was in agreement with the PN’s position that the votes of third parties not elected to parliament should be transferred to the big parties. Wenzu is quick to point out that AD and the PN looked at this matter from an entirely different perspective. “The PN proposal was to recover AD votes through the vote transfer system while AD was seeking the best way to ensure representation. One also has to consider the dynamics of the negotiations.”
But does the crusader for electoral reform of yesterday still believe in political representation for political minorities? Twelve years later Wenzu thinks that the leap for a party like AD from extra-parliamentary waters to the intrigues of government could be devastating. “Journalists before every election used to ask us with whom we would ally ourselves if elected to parliament. This was an unfair question. How can one expect a party which has not even gained representation to decide on who should govern the country?”
But should small parties like AD be represented in parliament if they surpass a threshold? “I believe in representation for minorities but one can reach this aim without putting minorities in the frying pen of deciding who will govern. In Italy they have a mixed system, part of which is majoritarian and part is proportional. Through the majoritarian element governability is guaranteed. Through the proportional element representation of minorities is also guaranteed.” Are you proposing a mechanism giving the party gaining a relative majority a majority of government? Mintoff mentions an Italian law in the 1950s, which assigned a “majority price” to the party winning a relative majority. I point out to Wenzu that this law has gone down in the annals of history as the “legge truffa” (The Fraudulent Law). “In Malta’s circumstances it would be better for small parties to evolve slowly in parliament without being embroiled in the intrigues of choosing whom to support in government,” insists Wenzu Mintoff.
I go one step further by proposing to Dr Mintoff a more radical reform. Why not remove all electoral districts and make Malta one single district? At least this would serve to eradicate clientelism. Wenzu speaks from his experience as a candidate in European elections when Malta was treated as a single district. “Even in these elections clientelism was rampant,” Mintoff ruefully comments.
But why is the MLP is enthusiastic for electoral reform? According to Wenzu Mintoff the MLP’s major concern is to avoid a repetition of the 1996 result. “The 1996 election result was a perverse one just like the 1987 one. The MLP had to be assigned five seats through the 1986 amendment in order to win a majority in parliament.” Wenzu Mintoff insists that the way the current districts were created favours the PN. I ask him to prove his case that districts are biased in the PN’s favour. He answers by giving the example of the second district where the PN won a second seat by removing most of Zabbar from this district. “There is a risk that that this will happen again in 2008.”
I ask Wenzu Mintoff whether the PN can change the rules without the MLP’s consent. “Eddie Fenech Adami always said that although it was possible to amend these laws with a simple majority, when one changes the basic rules of democracy one should seek consensus. In the current circumstances where the margin between the parties is so small it is important that changes are made through a common agreement.”