The legitimacy of a government after an EP election defeat

When Dr Lawrence Gonzi was Prime Minister, the Nationalist Party lost the European Union Parliamentary election held on 6 June 2009. His party obtained two seats in the European Parliament while the then Opposition party – the Malta Labour Party – obtained three seats.

The question that arises is whether the government at that time lost its legitimacy and, if so, should it have passed on calling a fresh general election in the light of the fact that the government had lost the electorate’s confidence? A similar situation might arise in future European Parliament elections where the Opposition defeats the political party in government again.

Should the party in government resign and call a fresh general election or should it continue to govern, ignoring the people’s opinion? I do not think that a hard and fast rule can however be devised in this eventuality and that the reply to this query vests very much in the circumstances of each case. Let me elaborate.

In the case of a European Union Parliamentary election, all the voting population of the Maltese islands is called to vote as is done in a general election. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that in the case of a European Union Parliament election, the electoral register also allows EU non-Maltese citizens to vote. Such EU non-Maltese citizens are however not entitled to vote in a general election taking place in Malta if they are not Maltese citizens.

Hence, the electoral base, though similar, cannot be said to be identical. Of course, the difference is not a substantial one but it can be significant enough in Malta where a political party may end up being elected to govern with a flimsy majority of say 1,500 votes over its political adversary and such a frail majority will decide which party will govern the Maltese islands.

In the case of a local council election, it is not the whole of Malta that goes to the polls whilst in the case of a referendum this is normally a one-issue matter, unless the referendum is combined with a general election or a European Union Parliament election. In the latter two cases, in all probability, the one-issue referendum will lose its importance and emphasis will be placed more upon the general election or the European Union Parliament election.

We have seen this phenomenon materialising when local council elections were held on the same day of a general election. The political parties concentrated mainly on their electoral campaign exclusively related to the general election, side-lining completely the local council elections to such an extent that the electorate barely knew that a local council election was being held in certain localities, unless one happened to be living there.

In the case of a referendum, there is but one question which is being asked to the electorate and one issue that is being voted upon, even if that issue might be fundamental to the governance of society. Such a question could ask whether Malta should (i) join the United Kingdom by way of integration, (ii) become an independent state or (iii) join the European Union.

Another issue that has been the subject of a referendum was the introduction of divorce in Malta and, it appears, that we will soon be called upon to vote on whether Malta should abolish spring hunting if the required signatures are confirmed as valid. The latter two referenda are of a purely sectoral nature but still of direct relevance to the population at large.

One can argue that since the enactment of the European Parliament Elections Act, 2003, the Maltese do not consider EU Parliament elections as having the same bearing as general elections and hence the electorate can take certain ‘risks’ that are not normally taken during a general election to send a message of protest to the government of the day.

Such ‘risks’ include voting for a minority party or an independent candidate who, in a general election, would not earn the electorate’s sympathy and vote. Whilst this might be the case, there is nothing to exclude such behaviour from taking place in a general election, and one cannot exclude that this has already happened in the past. However, it is difficult to gauge the reliability of this statement once voting takes place in secret.

Moreover, the voter turnout percentages in an EU Parliament election, though high, do not compare with those of a general election. Recourse to direct democracy as a means of governance in Malta is very limited when compared to countries such as Switzerland where the electorate participates directly in the governance of the country. Arguments in favour of having a stable and effective government are sometimes made against direct democracy so that the few representatives in the legislature retain power.

Propositive referenda do not exist in Malta. Nor does the electorate have the power to recall a Member of Parliament who might no longer enjoy the trust of the electorate who perceive him or her as having betraying their trust.

The laws regulating abrogative referenda have been with us since 1998 but abrogative referenda have never been resorted to. It is only in 2014 that a first recourse to an abrogative referendum is being had and we do not know whether this will be the first and sole time that an abrogative referendum is called or whether it will encourage the population to elect to participate directly in the governance of the country through future abrogative referenda.

What can be surely stated is that for the last 16 years or so, the electorate has preferred to leave the business of government and legislation in the hands of its elected representatives rather than enter the electoral fray itself.

Bearing the above in mind, I find it difficult to disagree with Dr Lawrence Gonzi’s decision not to call a general election following a defeat in the 2009 European Parliament elections. I think that his government still enjoyed legitimacy. The situation is however different with regard to Dr Eddie Fenech Adami who, after having won the EU referendum, he was constrained to call a general election because the Opposition was stating that it, not Government, had won the EU accession referendum.

This uncertainty had to be placated as it referred to a fundamental issue to the governance of the country and a general election alone could seal the people’s fate within or outside the EU. Six weeks following the referendum, a general election was held with essentially one main fundamental item on the agenda – adherence to the result of the referendum on European Union accession – and it was won by the government of the day. The general election became a one-issue electoral campaign simply because the Labour Party at that time acted illogically.

From a logical point of view, the general election was not needed in 2003, as it was clear that the people had voted for EU accession but being in Malta, surprises come by the dozen. There was no doubt that the referendum result was clear and legitimate. This is why, at the inception of this article, I refrained from laying down hard and fast rules as Maltese politics tend to be quite sui generis in nature and, as seen above, sometimes even defy logic, statistics and mathematics!

To conclude on the issue as to why a government continues to retain legitimacy after an electoral defeat in a European Parliament election or in a referendum, one has to note that the electorate in a general election differs from that in a European Parliament election where, in the latter instance, foreign EU non-Maltese citizens are entitled to vote in Malta in addition to Maltese EU citizens. The electoral turnout is always higher in a general election than in a European Parliament election. The electoral programmes are different and whilst the electoral programme for a general election is touching bread-and-butter issues that will positively or adversely affect the Maltese in their pockets, the same cannot be said with regard to a European Parliament election which, wrongly I argue, is perceived as referring to abstract and distant issues.

The impact on the Maltese is felt more in a general election that in a European Parliament election. The powers of the European Parliament are narrower when compared to the Parliament of Malta, which is dominated by the government of the day. On the other hand, there can be cases where a government that has won a general election but lost a European Parliament election should call a general election. An example would be where the government has suffered a resounding defeat (‘tkaxkira’) in the European Parliament election, such that the only honourable thing for the government to do is to call a general election.

However, Maltese political parties do not seem to suffer from this legitimacy syndrome. When the Labour Party lost the general election in 1981, it continued to govern for a full-term till 1987. When the Nationalist Party de facto lost majority in Parliament it continued to govern till practically the end of the legislature in 2013, with sporadic votes being taken in the House of Representatives and outside the course of standard parliamentary procedure, bringing into disrepute and making a mockery of the highest institution in the land.