A fixed election date in the national interest

The prime minister retains sole prerogative to call an election whenever he deems fit. Robert Abela has cited the “national interest” as his guiding principle for calling the election—every prime minister before him has done so. 

The truth is, hardly anyone believes Abela that his decision will be motivated by what is best for the country. Like every other prime minister before him, the decision is very likely to be motivated by what is best for his political party. 

He will be looking at internal polls and evaluating whether the passage of time will work in his favour to try and attract back to the fold disgruntled Labourites. If the answer to the latter is no, he will consider the prospect of a short, intense electoral campaign to cut his losses. Abela will also be looking at the Opposition to determine whether they are weak—scoring the biggest victory possible is always something to relish. 

These permutations are only possible because Malta has no fixed election date. And inevitably this leads to election date speculation once the administration’s term enters its third year—past the halfway mark. 

The media may amplify election speculation talk but this year, the Labour Party has taken steps that have fuelled the rumours. Filling Malta with billboards; holding a party congress to approve the guidelines of the electoral manifesto; and Abela being ambiguous in his replies whenever asked about the election date; are not measures intended to dispel rumours. Rather they are the actions of a party revving up its engine because the election is round the corner. 

There may be a political motive in keeping the speculation alive. It keeps ministers, MPs and prospective candidates on tenterhooks, encouraging them to work harder, meet more people and address grievances in the final year of the administration. Once again, this motive has little to do with the national interest and more to do with partisan interest. 

Election speculation may make for interesting dinner or wedding conversations but it also breeds uncertainty that can negatively impact business sentiment, especially in a context where a change in government is a possibility. 

Within this context, this leader reiterates what it already said in January that the country should seriously consider adopting a system whereby the general election is held on a fixed day. In this way, everyone will know when the next election is coming, sweeping away any speculation that causes uncertainty or gives the incumbent an unfair advantage. 

The only exceptions for an early election would be if the government loses a vote of confidence in parliament or if the prime minister believes it is in the national interest to hold an early election, which, however will have to be approved by a majority vote in parliament following the presentation of a motion. The latter will give leeway for an election to be held earlier but it removes the surprise element from the decision and will be subjected to parliamentary procedure. 

Britain did experiment with a fixed election date between 2011 and 2022 before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed thus granting the prime minister sole prerogative once again. What is interesting is that a 2018 study published in The British Journal of Politics and International Relations (Schleiter and Belu) found that, on average, a prime minister got a vote share bonus of 6% and a seat share bonus of 12% when they picked the election date, increasing the chances that they stayed in office. 

To our knowledge there is no such study quantifying the advantage gained by the governing party in Malta through the power of incumbency. But we all know about the magical things that tend to happen on election eve. 

In this sense, a fixed election date could create a more level playing field because it makes it possible to introduce laws that curb a government’s power of incumbency in the run-up. In this way, rushed decisions on the eve of an election to appease and accommodate voter requests—some of which are undeserving—can be eliminated. 

But a fixed date also makes sense to better regulate spending by candidates and political parties before the election campaign actually kicks off. As things stand today, a candidate can start spending money on their personal campaign in advance but for legal purposes only declare the amounts spent after the election is called. 

We believe that a fixed election date is more democratic than the current haphazard scenario that favours the partisan interest over the national interest.