A European election without Europe

As Malta gears up for a supposedly European election, there is increasing evidence that the campaign will be fought out on purely local and national issues, with the European parliament relegated to the backbenches.

This week, all three major parties contesting this election launched their respective campaigns. Only one – that of Alternattiva Demokratika – appears to be rooted in any European relevance whatsoever.  The Green Party’s slogan (‘For a Better Europe’) might not be the most original ever coined… but unlike those of the main parties, it does at least acknowledge that this election is about electing candidates to the European Parliament, and as such involves a contribution to the shaping of the European Union as a whole.

No such commitment appears anywhere in the Labour and Nationalist campaigns… even though, ironically, both party leaders are themselves former MEPs.

Judging by their respective speeches to inaugurate their campaigns, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Opposition leader Simon Busuttil appear hell-bent on capitalising on this election to attain purely domestic goals. Setting the tone for what is likely to be an echo of the last general election campaign, Mucat declared that his chief objective is securing a majority in the EP: “Be with us in making history and becoming the first government to obtain the majority of votes in the EP elections. Be with us to form part of an exceptional team because you are here to judge us,” he told enthusiastic party supporters.

Completely absent from the Labour campaign so far is any indication of what the Labour Party would use this desired majority to achieve in practical terms. And Muscat has good reason to avoid any reference to how his elected MEPs will be expected to behave in the European Parliament.

Hidden behind a stage-managed veneer of confidence and enthusiasm, Muscat’s speech betrays the fact that Labour’s experience in the EP has of late been rather sour. His government was recently chastised and humiliated by the EP, which nearly unanimously voted to condemn the citizenship scheme launched by the Muscat administration last year.

That vote also exposed the fragility of the power wielded by Labour’s EP majority. Significantly, the PL’s own European allies joined in the chorus of disapproval of Muscat’s actions as prime minister: suggesting that, despite enjoying greater presence in the parliament, Labour’s MEPs were in fact powerless to influence the vote.

This in turn means that, even though its hold on the local reins of power is unassailable, Labour feels itself vulnerable and for the most part isolated in Europe. Muscat is therefore understandably keen on camouflaging this uncomfortable reality. Like Busuttil – albeit for very different reasons – he would prefer voters to base their vote on purely local, as opposed to European issues.

The situation facing the PN is quite different, even if its effects have so far been very similar. Simon Busuttil argues that this election offers an opportunity for voters to ‘give government a yellow card’… in other words, to use their vote as a means of conveying their feelings about government’s performance over the past 13 months. The PN’s slogan, ‘A Better Malta’, likewise reflects a rather narrow and insular perspective on supposedly European affairs.

This is a self-evident distortion of the true significance of this election, as Busuttil must no doubt be aware. His words have effectively downgraded the forthcoming vote to little more than an opinion poll on the purely local performance of the government. Yet a European election is hardly needed for this purpose. A simple survey would easily achieve the same result.

At the same time, his motives for ‘localising’ the European election are easy enough to discern. After a series of electoral defeats at both local and European level, the PN has now sensed a real possibility of winning the elusive third seat for the first time. By urging voters to make this election a reflection of local concerns, Busuttil appears to be trying to kill two birds with one stone: transforming an anticipated European victory into a sorely-needed local triumph also.

But there is a danger inherent to both these approaches. Malta has now been in a state of high political confrontation for a number of years. Following the longest election campaign since independence, culminating in the March 2013 election (which in turn followed on from a divisive divorce referendum), the country has been beset by one local political controversy after another. There was the smart meters scandal, the partial privatisation of Enemalta, the IIP debate, the (ongoing) civil unions debate, all following each other almost without any breathing space.

There is, in brief, a very real danger of electoral fatigue. With so much emphasis already placed on national controversies, the last thing the electorate needs is another campaign focusing on local issues. Yet both major parties appear intent of heaping even more fuel onto an unsustainable fire of largely contrived local controversies… possibly pushing an already exasperated electorate beyond the limits of its patience.

And all along, both parties have successfully projected the image that they are cut off from the realities affecting the daily life of citizens. This is all a recipe for nationwide disillusionment.