Election 2026: Analysing the voice of the people

After the hype of the election campaign dissipates and the commotion following the result dies down, those who are “into politics” spend the next few weeks analysing what the numbers mean. The significance of the turnout, which way people voted and the reasoning of those who stayed home.

There is no doubt that Alex Borg made great strides in just seven months. It is a fact which could be felt, especially towards the end of the campaign when formerly disillusioned PN voters came out in their droves to give him their support. He slashed what seemed like an insurmountable gap by half and gave Nationalist supporters a glimmer of hope that a win was possible.

But narrowing that gap wasn’t enough and now some Nationalist supporters in their frustration and disappointment are trying to lash out and look for scapegoats. Of course, the disillusionment is understandable; for those who desperately wanted to get rid of Labour the prospect of another term under this government seems unthinkable. On the other hand, bickering on Facebook is a useless exercise and so are the far-fetched theories which I have seen being circulated.

The first target on their list were those who voted for the small parties whom they are accusing of helping to get Labour elected on the presumption that these votes would normally have gone to the PN. Hmmm, don’t be so sure, because there is a faction of former Labour voters who feel completely detached from the capitalist monolith, which the PL has become, and can now only relate to parties such as Momentum and ADPD.

If one is truly left-wing, how on earth can you vote for a conservative, right-wing party like the PN? This belief that one should vote PN at any cost simply to get Labour out has been touted in a number of elections but this strategy keeps failing for obvious reasons. One votes for a party which represents one’s values and principles and berating people for not voting as you would want them to has never worked.

It also did not help Alex Borg’s cause that he did not offer a real alternative to Labour’s current policies. Pie in the sky proposals such as building a metro and five more hospitals will not solve the three biggest issues the country is facing: Over-development, over-population and traffic. It is no coincidence that an invisible thread links all three issues and the two main parties tip-toed gingerly around them out of fear they would step on too many business toes and disturb the almighty economy.

Traffic and population

The day after the result came out, I read some silly non-sequiturs with people in traffic claiming “you can thank those who voted Labour”. Did they seriously think a PN government would magically conjure up the metro from one day to the next? Frankly, the only party which offered a realistic, workable solution to traffic, which could be implemented overnight was Momentum. Its proposal is to cut down on private car use by introducing subsidies for cabs to add a ‘share-a-ride’ option. If I were the new transport minister I would swallow my pride, give credit where it’s due and take them up on this idea because it is a win-win.

There were also contradictions in the PN manifesto. On the one hand the party was proposing the National Population Authority, which in itself is a sensible idea, and yet not saying where all the hundreds of workers required to build its metro and hospitals would come from.

It was also a mis-step by Alex Borg to announce a joint task force between the Armed Forces of Malta and the police to go after illegal immigrants. It smacked too much like Trump’s ICE tactics.

The most logical way to control the influx of more foreign workers is to go to the source—employers offering them jobs and then firing them. Neither of the two parties would go so far as to state that no more permits would be issued for new shops, cafes, restaurants and hotels. As I write, the former Lascaris power plant in Floriana is slated to be turned into (another) boutique hotel plus high-end offices, retail outlets and restaurants “as part of a continued regeneration of the Grand Harbour area.”

The PN also never explained, in a concrete way, how it would curb further construction and clamp down on illegal development. It did not stick its neck out much for the environment either because when it came to the crunch it voted in favour of the decision to allocate virgin land in Pembroke to build a massive sports and commercial complex.

More handouts and freebies? Sure, we will give them out too. Hunting? We will protect you. A fireworks factory caused massive destruction? Hands off, it is our tradition!  In short, on things which matter to a lot of people, the Nationalist Party failed to demonstrate that it was different from Labour.

PN voters also set their sights on foreigners, with some going so far as to say with complete conviction that Labour won because TCNs (for which read Indian, Philippine, Pakistani, Nepal nationals) were given a vote. I have seen this allegation repeated numerous times with nothing to substantiate it. There has simply been no proof of people without Maltese citizenship being given a vote. This claim started after photos were circulated showing TCNs celebrating the PL’s victory, but it really does not take a rocket scientist to understand why.

Put simply, Labour created this economic model which relies on foreign workers and which has given them much needed employment. In contrast, the PN rhetoric was becoming increasingly anti-foreigner. Rather than indulging in conspiracy theories, all you have to do is put yourself in their shoes… who would you be cheering for?

Elections aside, when it comes to our foreign workforce which is propping up more than one sector, political leaders have to be very careful what words they choose because it unleashes the latent racism in both PN and PL supporters. Aside from displaying a cold callousness towards people who are just trying to earn a living, I know for a fact that adopted children of a different race—by law Maltese nationals—are being subjected to the vicious hatred I have read online.  They are being bullied at school, being called horrible names by other children and it does not take much imagination to deduce where they are learning this behaviour from.

Some home truths

For all the unfounded claims, there are others which we cannot deny.

Did the government have an advantage because of the power of incumbency? Yes of course. Giving people jobs during an election campaign should not be allowed, and a caretaker government should not inaugurate new projects. But it is only MPs who can push forward this legislation so that should be their first order of business.

Was the Labour Party worried about the Alex Borg effect? Yes. It is quite clear now why the election was called a year early. Robert Abela realised the young, fresh PN leader was making inroads and closing the gap.

Do voters ‘reward’ someone they perceive as a victim?  Yes. Rosianne Cutajar was re-elected despite her previous ethical misconduct, while Conrad Borg Manche’ was elected not on one but two districts, despite personal family matters being made public.

Did the Omar Rababah candidacy backfire? Undoubtedly, yes, but only on Omar himself. If the PL was trying to attract the unquantified Muslim vote it did not work. Rababah did not fare well. As for all the supposedly thousands of Muslim voters, which people were so terrified of, I guess none of them live in the 11 towns and villages which Omar contested.

Does the gender corrective mechanism work? Well, yes and no. It will certainly help push a number of women who did poorly at the polls to get into parliament. But it certainly is not working for ADPD candidate Sandra Gauci who received substantially more votes than some of the women who will eventually have a seat.

The PL and the PN made sure of that in the way they devised this law. I still do not agree with the mechanism, as I believe a woman should only get a seat on her own merit, but the least they could have done is to not discriminate against women themselves.

And finally, a look at some other numbers which are arguably just as important as the results. Over 44,000 did not vote, representing 12.5% of the electorate. It would be pertinent for all the parties to examine the demographics of this cohort to better read the pulse of the electorate.