The pushback legacy: 6,761 ‘neo-Nazi’ voters?

On the eve of the 2013 general elections, during a quick question-and-answer session, Labour leader Joseph Muscat made it clear that he would not “exclude pushbacks”. A year later, a party promising to push back migrants gained 6,500 votes. What’s going on?

Elected in government and facing a spike in arrivals last summer, Muscat came close to honouring his pre-electoral pledge by laying preparations for the pushback of a number of migrants to Libya until he received an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights. Muscat justified his actions by insisting that this was a way to make Europe “wake up and smell the coffee”. 

The onslaught of vulgar comments and racist slurs on Commissioner Cecilia Malmström’s Facebook page and plans for a far-right demonstration under the emblem of a Maltese cross remodelled as a swastika – in support of the government – were a clear indication that the Prime Minister was playing with fire. Muscat immediately saw the danger and condemned the proposed march.

Compared to the results of far right parties in other countries, Norman Lowell’s vote does not make for big news in Europe

Still, the PM continued to play the nationalist card, denying entry to migrants rescued by the Salamis tanker who were left stranded between Malta and Italy for two days before Italy yielded, thus narrowly avoiding a humanitarian catastrophe.

But true to his character, Muscat showed enough flexibility to change tack, embarking on close cooperation with Italy to present a common front in Europe over migration, a policy which yielded more results than tantrums, judging by the dip in arrivals over the past months. 

Italy’s decision to take responsibility for all migrants in distress following the tragic deaths of migrants in the Mediterranean seemed to clear the way for a more humanitarian approach to the problem. The decline in arrivals seemed to have taken the wind from Norman Lowell’s sails.

At the onset of the electoral campaign, Muscat went one step further. While addressing party supporters, he called for an end to the detention of child migrants.

The onslaught of vulgar comments and racist slurs on Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom’s Facebook page, and a planned far right demonstration made it clear that Muscat was playing with fire

More than what he said, the most significant aspect was the locality and date chosen for the announcement: the Freedom Monument on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of Freedom Day.

While Muscat was simply promising to enforce a policy which already existed on an issue where Malta is not respecting international obligations, his speech represented a departure from the discourse used during the previous year. Unsurprisingly, this part of the speech was met by a muted applause from party supporters. 

A more humanitarian approach was pushed forward by Muscat’s presidential nominee Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, whose first weeks in office were marked by clear pronouncements against prejudice and in favour of inclusion.

This was somewhat counterbalanced by agreements with a number of African states like Nigeria to deport migrants whose applications for asylum have been turned down during the past years.

Moreover, although the PN opposed the plan to push back migrants and thus paid a political price, its stance was contradictory, as the same party had previously agreed with a similar policy practiced by the Berlusconi government, before the European Court of Human Rights concluded that this policy was illegal. Since then, the PN largely agreed with government in demanding more burden sharing, accusing the government of not doing enough in Europe to secure such an arrangement. But in the past months the party has not taken any leading role in confronting racism.

Betting on Schulz

But Labour’s most significant shift on migration during the campaign was to ally itself with the European socialists on this issue. This was made clear during a campaign visit by Socialist candidate for the presidency of the European Commission Martin Schulz, who spoke of the need of a common European policy on migration and the creation of legal avenues through which asylum seekers would reach Europe without having to risk their lives while crossing. 

Labour’s message to voters was clear: while still hyping migration as a national problem – thus reflecting the concerns of its own voters – the election of a Socialist President of the Commission would somewhat alleviate the burden from Malta. 

Surely this reflected a more sensible approach to migration on Muscat’s part. In fact, as Alternattiva Demokratika noted in the final days of the campaign, following similar pronouncements by the EPP Presidential candidate Jean Claude Juncker in Malta, all three parties were converging on a common position.

What was left unsaid was that it is national governments of individual countries, not the Commission, who have accepted a common migration policy. Moreover, the chances of Schulz becoming the next President of the Commission already looked flimsy as the EPP was set to win a relative majority.

Lowell’s cousins in Europe

Ironically, it is the triumph of Lowell’s distant and not-so-distant cousins in Europe, which makes it more difficult for the European government to accept a common migration policy which would see northern and central European governments taking more migrants from the central Mediterranean. With the National Front leading the polls in France and the UKIP winning elections in the UK, it is highly unlikely for governments in these countries to willingly accept changes to EU treaties which would see them taking more migrants. While political foresight demands that these countries assume greater responsibility, electoral pressures may paralyze any attempt to revise Dublin II or to create legal avenues for migrants to enter Europe. Moreover, the result makes an EPP-led commission the most likely outcome of the elections after the socialists failed in their bid to displace the EPP as the biggest party in parliament. Despite Juncker’s intentions, an EPP-led Commission may be more lukewarm to address this issue due to fear of losing more support to the far right.  Ironically, failure to act on the European front will only end up strengthening the far right in southern Europe. 

Moreover, after raising expectations among his voters on a European solution to Malta’s migration problems, Muscat may find himself having little to offer on this front to supporters come the next general election. 

In reality, the only long-term approach is that of pressing for incremental changes in Europe while starting to change perceptions on migrations at home. 

But after being given the impression that the problem could vanish either through pushbacks or as a result of electing Schulz, Labour voters may feel disappointed. 

The Nazis in our midst

Compared to the results of far-right parties in other countries Norman Lowell’s vote does not make for big news in Europe. Neither did Lowell’s relative success have any bearing on the results. He did not even accomplish his elusive mission of surpassing the Greens as the third force of Maltese politics.

But 6,761 votes in highly bi-partisan Malta – which has not elected a third party to parliament since 1962 – increases the significance of Lowell’s 2.7%.

Moreover, the vote is relatively invisible, and it’s also possible that a sizeable segment of Lowell’s voters do not share his most extreme views, though they may very well concur with his phobia of black migrants. One interesting phenomenon is the failure of opinion polls to register Lowell’s support. This may indicate that IE voters may either be ashamed of declaring their vote or were registering a last-minute protest vote.