[ANALYSIS] A peg on the nose or freedom to dream?

In an article last week, the PN’s new chief strategist Chis Peregin argued that the only way to clip the wings of the Labour government was that of voting PN and thus reduce its majority. He argued that Labour’s seven-seat majority means it can basically “get away with anything”.

“If the government had a slimmer majority, it probably wouldn’t bulldoze over 150-year-old trees or hand out permits despite 17,000 objections from the public”.

There is an irrefutable logic to this reasoning, even if it hinges on the undeclared admission that Labour is bound to win the next election... with the next election simply determining by how much.

And while most observers will concur that the PN is not yet prepared to lead the country and still needs that generational change which can only take place after the next election, the country would be better off with a reduced gap between government and opposition. While electing the PN at this junction remains unthinkable, simply because voters can’t even picture a PN-led Cabinet, an equally bad scenario would be Labour enlarging its majority, with the PN reduced to a rump of have-beens.

In such a scenario hardcore Labourites would probably ask: why turn on our own in corruption cases when the electorate still rewards us with victory?

What’s sure is that if Labour wins with the same margin as in 2013 and 2017 or even manages to increase it, Labour would have effectively bought a ticket to win the 2027 election. Reversing a 35,000 gap at one go verges on the impossible for any party. In reality, winning with the same majority as in 2017, would probably mean Labour remains in government till 2032.

Even the most left-wing of environmental activists would tell you that there their task would be far easier if the government is constantly scared of losing its majority, and for that to happen the country needs a strong opposition with a real chance of upsetting Labour’s apple cart.

Yet apart from revulsion at the PN’s latent conservatism and poor track record on the issues that matter when in government before 2013, many fear that for the PN to become a threat to Labour, it will have to endear itself further with big business. Silence or omission, like the party’s unwillingness to criticise the DB group or stand up to magnates like Joseph Portelli, is seen as confirmation that real change demands more radical solutions than a stronger PN. Some may even hope that the PN would self-combust after losing the next election, clearing the space for new opposition parties.

One major obstacle to the PN winning the tactical vote of those who want a stronger opposition, is that it is ultimately part and parcel of the same system which enabled politicians like Konrad Mizzi and Joseph Muscat. The downside of the puritan argument is that one can’t expect ‘virginity’ from any opposition set to topple a government, which can easily out-spend the opposition and has the power of incumbency on its side.

Any change in history, short of violent revolutions, has involved compromises with segments of the establishment.

So if many still felt comfortable voting for Muscat in 2013 despite clear signs that he was already flirting with the Malta Developers Association, why do they expect the PN to abide to a different code of conduct? The answer may well lie in the same question. Ironically, the same people who regret voting Labour in 2013 may now be more reluctant to make the same mistake again by voting for the PN.

A peg on the nose

Even if the logic of putting a peg on the nose by voting PN to clip Labour’s wings prevails among a segment of independent voters, the chances are that this would not be enough to prevent a repetition of 2017.

The reason is that voters rarely make tactical choices and are normally swayed by the appeal of the expected winner. One can’t really expect Bernard Grech to openly say “vote for me ‘cause I have absolutely no chance of winning but the country would be better off if Labour has a three-seat majority rather than nine.”

Put simply, the only way for the PN to reduce the gap is that of ditching the perception of being eternal losers, but that may require even more compromises with powerful lobbies which have an important role in determining who is seen as electable or not.

Moreover, to attract tactical voters the PN can still help itself by ditching the most extreme conservative views and presenting a lowest common denominator of a mainstream socially liberal and modern centrist party. The risk in this is that the PN would end up becoming blander then ever out of fear of breaking a coalition of voters, which extends across the spectrum.

This would also require discipline and obedience to a leader who has clear electoral targets which can’t be upset by the pride of old-timers. The PN also needs candidates with certain appeal that goes beyond the party’s traditional conservative cohort.

Still, expecting the PN to ditch its roots may also sound artificial and made-up for the occasion. On many issues, opting for the PN means supporting the more conservative party on issues like drug reform and reproductive rights: if your priority is legalising pot and abortion, the PN is simply not for you. But the PN can do better in reaching out to voters with green priorities, for example by at least coming up with concrete proposals on planning policies.

Don’t vote, or find Labour’s AOC?

PN strategists may also be overlooking the fact that voting for a stronger opposition is not be the only option available to voters who are angry at Labour but still cringe at the PN. As things stand, the most attractive proposition for such voters may be that of not voting at all.

But while a surge in non-voters may send a strong message that not all is well in Maltese democracy, the risk is that even if this happens, abstention can easily be relegated to the realm of statistical analysis, with no real impact on the balance of power, and Labour’s hold on the country’s institutions.

And even if present day surveys show that one in four of voters under 50 ia either not voting or still undecided, their numbers are bound to shrink in the next months as the country becomes increasingly polarised.

A more insidious option is that of voting for Labour candidates who actually stand for different values than the current crop which includes a number of Muscat loyalists. With Abela slowly distancing himself from the Muscat era, he may be more disposed to accept an injection of new blood. The PN can’t ignore the reality that Abela has reduced Labour’s cringe factor among anti-corruption voters, who may would still like more heads to roll but are not blind to the arraignment of key figures like Keith Schembri.

As things stand, electing a progressive female Labour candidate who can stand up to be counted on both civil liberties, social and environment justice, is a possibility worth exploring. Some candidatures, like that of housing expert Rachael Scicluna, look promising. Yet with no vocal movement in Labour like that which catapulted candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US congress – and crucially no tradition of dissent in Labour, as amply demonstrated by the lack of any internal rebellion after the events in the past years – it is extremely unlikely that anyone elected on the Labour ticket would enjoy the freedom to shake the system from within.

Minority voices in Labour can only prosper in a situation where the gap between parties is reduced, as otherwise the government will find it easy to ignore any signs of internal dissent.

Are small parties doomed?

In such a context, small parties like ADPD or Volt may well remain the option closest to the values of liberal and left-wing voters who shun the PN but would like to punish Labour. But once again the problem is the effectiveness of such a vote, especially because the current crop of third party leaders is so uninspiring that their shambolic parties increasingly look like a historical dead0end. This may increase the temptation not to vote at all, in the hope that abstaining would clear the ground for a future political experiment. Hubris can also be tempting.

Still, in the full certainty that Labour will win, some voters may be feeling freer in experimenting with their vote. The success of independents like Steve Zammit Lupi at local level may be an example worth emulating on a district level.

But at this stage voters may be more interested in blowing a big “raspberry” with their vote in a sign of insurgency. The insurgency could take the shape of an absurdist subversion, like that of clogging the system by fielding a large number of independent candidates, all demanding their fair allocation of TV air-time and using this in the most creative ways.

Up until now, the greatest limit for serious third parties has either been their inability to work within the system by campaigning hard to get elected through vote transfers in particular districts or short of that by ditching any pretensions for seriousness by providing an outlet for a playful and witty Bis-Serjetà kinds of insurgency.

This may well be dismissed as fantasy politics. But isn’t imagination the key to change?