A bizarre election: Why none of the options convinced me

The problem with Labour

For me, there is an appeal in post-2013 Malta. It is more cosmopolitan and socially liberal than the Malta I grew up in during the 1990s, where you could be arrested for smoking a joint, and even the sheer mention of abortion was scorned as blasphemy. Despite Labour’s shift to the right during the campaign, it is more open to a conversation on themes like abortion, assisted dying and secularism than the Nationalists. This liberalism is important, but it also comes with big limitations. For example, the PL’s manifesto vaguely hints at increasing penalties in libel cases.

But the worst aspect of the PL’s campaign was its pandering to xenophobia.

Consider how Robert Abela quickly compensated for any losses from being courageous in fielding Omar Rababah with deliberately exclusionary discourse on foreign workers. The worst aspect was that this divisive language, pitting native workers against imported ones, was used by the leader of a government whose economic model rests on the hard work of all workers, migrants included. Sure, to a large extent Labour has used revenues from this wealth to shield Maltese workers from austerity.

But this does not redeem Abela from his collusion with big business and presiding over an economic model/miracle which is addicted to unsustainable growth. Labour’s message has been consistent: We have an ugly model which we try to tinker with but, in the end, that is what funds your super bonus… from which those who suffered most to create it are excluded.

Sure, Labour is the devil we know. A devil which can sometimes be forced to backtrack under public pressure. As was the case with the PN in the 1990s, it is the government one likes to oppose but which remains the most plausible option. Robert Abela deserves credit for successfully navigating major international crises like the pandemic and global inflation without resorting to the kind of austerity which crippled the working class in other countries. But still, at a deeper moral level, I feel uncomfortable with taking this to the logical conclusion—peg my nose and ignore the stench. After all, only last summer they even tried to enact a developers’ wish list into law. The fact that this law was even contemplated makes me shit scared of the harm the same people behind that law can do if given the power to change local plans.

The problem with the Nationalists

Through the campaign I could sense a revitalised Opposition which was at least trying to sell a vision for the country.

Moreover, the PN has found a leader who can give Labour a run for its money, even if the odds remain pitted against him.

But the PN has also actively contributed, at times even outstripping Labour, in the bizarre auction of promises. In so doing it also participated in the most ridiculous aspect of the campaign.

The PN has gone as far as proposing a fully functioning metro line in five years, exempting young people from paying tax for five years, and reducing utility bills by 30%. All this in an election taking place amidst mounting international fears over the fallout from the war in Iran.

Moreover, considering the unlikelihood of a PN victory, my hunch is that the PN is simply promising everything to everyone with the aim of narrowing the gap. If, by some miracle they actually win, I doubt they have a clear idea of what to do the day after and, crucially, whether they have a team who can actually make it work.

While the PN made an attempt to present the promises in a wider package, some of its proposals, like removing any inheritance tax even on large patrimonies, affirmed a right-wing shift and departure from the principle of social justice.

And like Robert Abela, Alex Borg used exclusionary discourse to rule out another mosque in Malta despite fully knowing that any policy limiting the number of places of worship of any religion is unconstitutional.

The cherry on the cake was the PN’s proposal to create a police/army taskforce targeting irregular migrants.

On the other hand, I was positively surprised by the PN’s endorsement of a key aspect of the equality bill that had been shelved, by proposing to make discrimination in the provision of services to LGBTIQ+ people illegal.

But I still fear a lurking conservatism, not just on themes like reproductive rights and assisted dying, but which could also be reflected in the appointment of conservatives to regulatory authorities.

I am also turned off by the party’s reluctance to mention Daphne Caruana Galizia’s name and to hit back at Labour on corruption; not because I subscribe to the anti-Labour crusade of many hypocrites who fronted this cause, but because I want to be sure that an alternative government will not simply preside over the same system which is so exposed to state capture by powerful commercial interests. Before talking about multi-million projects like a metro and a fuel hub, we should rather be sure that these are insulated from dirty money.

Sure, it was good that we had a campaign without mudslinging and unproven allegations which only strengthened Labour in past elections. Nobody yearned for a return to the 2017 election, but neither can one ignore what happened to Caruana Galizia a few months later and what led to the resignation of Joseph Muscat in 2019.

Neither did we see the PN promise to dismantle the current planning regime which is sick beyond cure. We live in a country where heritage is literally knocked down—vide Fort Chambray—or buried under apartment blocks, like the newly discovered catacombs in Qawra. Nonetheless, we have an Opposition which chases the hares while hunting with hounds.

There is logical sense in the argument that the only way to narrow the gap and bring Labour down to size is by voting for the PN. But apart from finding it hard to imagine a PN-led government next Monday, the ideological disconnection with the PN runs deep in my veins and, in some instances, this disconnection reached new heights during the campaign. Considering all this, pegging my nose simply to give Labour a lesson is a step too far especially when on several key issues the alternative looks worse.

The problem with third parties

I have great respect for Arnold Cassola, whom I have known for 35 years, during which he fully invested his life in combatting the abuse of power by successive governments. Momentum has not participated in the national auction or in bashing foreigners, and has even dared to propose taxes on vacant properties and speculation. But I can’t really understand Momentum’s strategy of targeting conservatives and pale-blue voters. These voters are more likely to unite behind the new face of the PN than vote for a party whose election to parliament is unlikely.

Moreover, one of the limits of third-party politics is the failure to identify with the progressive camp. Sure, at the present juncture Labour deserves a drubbing and a wake-up call. But in the long-term, centre-left parties are bound to converge against the threat posed by a creeping conservatism.

As regards ADPD, their campaign was more rudimentary than Momentum’s. But Sandra Gauci, in her finest moment, did manage to establish an emotional connection with working-class voters who are fed up with Labour’s sleaze.

“My father may have worked to clean other people’s rubbish. But I am entering politics so I can clean parliament from corruption,” Gauci said during the university leaders’ debate.

This may well be the most convincing argument to go out and vote for someone on election day. Had ADPD given more of this, they may well have left a greater mark on this election. This is because third parties need to win the minds and hearts of ordinary people instead of lecturing and guilt-tripping them from a pulpit.

As regards the far right, I think that the lurch to the right by both the PN and the PL has rendered them irrelevant. But while neutralising the far right, both parties have sown the seeds of division which would make Malta fertile ground for the far right the moment our economic model fails to deliver.

Then there is the option of not voting. Sure, voting is a civic duty, but not voting is also a right and a legitimate option. Trying to guilt-trip people who can’t bring themselves to vote is like blaming them for the poor choices that are being offered instead of those making the offerings. Sure, in the final instance my sense of civic duty is likely to prevail, but I can perfectly understand why some will give this election a pass.