The one-seat majority they deserve

Both Nationalist and Labour parties are open to discussing a future change to the Constitution to avoid situations where a government ends up with a one-seat majority in Parliament.

The fact that they even would consider such a bizarre idea speaks volumes on the democratic credentials of both parties. Instead of expressing revulsion at such an anti democratic concept, both expressed interest in this indecent proposal.

This is incredible. While gloating at Debono's antics in parliament the Labour Party is willing to discuss the idea of a majority price for any party winning a majority of votes.  Labour said that such a proposal would be discussed 'as part of a larger reform of the constitution. If such a bizarre proposal will make it to the discussion table, what else is up their sleeves?

Ironically if a "majority prize" is already in place, Debono would have not been in a position to endanger the present government and Labour would have to wait another year for an election.

The PN, while acknowledging that discussing such a proposal now 'would not look good' in present circumstances, also agrees that such a proposal should be discussed because of the inherent risk that governments are held hostage by one of their MPs.

So the solution being floated is to give the winning party extra seats which do not represent any voters and do not respect the result of the election. Therefore, if a party wins one extra vote, it would win extra seats; while a third party which wins 4,000 votes (but no seats) will still be excluded from parliament.

Incredible! One vote would count two or three extra seats while 4,000 would count nothing.

Both parties seem to forget that before the last election they had actually changed the Constitution to ensure that in case two parties are elected in parliament, the result always reflects the proportion of votes. The major reason for this was the unfair 1996 result which saw Labour winning with a 7,000-vote margin, but which was translated in a one-seat majority.

Therefore for the first time the seats in parliament must reflect the proportion of votes if only two parties are elected in parliament. Unfortunately what counts for the goose does not count for the gander, and no such proportionality exists with regards to third parties who surpass a national quota.

It was for this reason the PN was given three extra seats to give it the present one-seat majority which actually reflects the slim 1,500-vote relative majority it gained. Giving the PN other extra seats as a majority prize would surely not have reflected the result of an election in which an absolute majority of voters had not voted for the PN in 2008.

Instead of this bizarre patchwork to ensure a comfortable majority, even in cases where no such majority exists among voters, it would make more sense to reform the electoral system in a way that principle of proportionality based on a national quota is applied also with regards to votes gained by third parties. A 5% threshold is more than enough to ensure stability and governability.

This would pave the way for real democratic coalitions based on joint programmes: a system which has given countries like Germany political and economic stability which makes it Europe's powerhouse. While two Maltese governments lost their majority since 1998, all German government in the same period served their full term, even if elections yielded three different coalition alignments in a five-party system.

Instead of realising that one-party government is a thing of the past because it is impossible to contain all the possible views in the world in one single party or parliamentary group, they are even willing to consider cheating to get the result they want even when they do not deserve it.

What both major parties deserve is never to get more than a one seat majority and to be held ransom by any disgruntled backbencher who falls out with the presidential leaders.

I am no fan of Franco Debono's antics. But solving the problem of rebel backbenchers by giving extra seats to the party winning a one-seat majority is a way of bypassing the fundamental problem arising from the fact that our parties represent too many conflicting interests to be stable.

My hunch tells me that even if one of the two big parties wins the next election with three seats, it will still face many of the same problems faced by Gonzi today especially in view of the absence of concrete programmes and pre-electoral policy choices. While one seat majorities have been conducive to lone rebels, stronger majorities will probably result in factional infighting which could even be more unstable.