Hope under Cassola’s big tent

If there is one thing in which Arnold Cassola excels, it is his ability to make people dream he can break the ceiling of a duopolistic party system.

He can make his supporters feel they are on the cusp of making history.

Unlike other third-party wannabes, the independent, former Alternattiva Demokratika politician has managed to project the image of a pragmatist who wants to be in a position of power to change things.

And it seems he has learnt some lessons from his ephemeral triumph 20 years ago, when AD failed to capitalise on his 23,000-vote success in the 2004 MEP election. For Cassola, the 2004 feat was followed up with a foray in Italian politics, briefly serving a centre-left MP in the Italian parliament.

But this time around Cassola seems determined not to lose momentum and has set a new train in motion: A new party based on the ‘big tent’ formula, designed to offer a new home for centrists, leftists, and greens. But there are many stumbling blocks in the way for Cassola’s new party. How the new party deals with these obstacles will determine whether it will fizzle away like previous experiments, or whether it will achieve what everyone else failed to accomplish.

1. In MEP elections, voters vote freely, fully knowing that their vote will not determine who is in government. This will change in general elections when people determine who will be running the show in Castille

Thanks to constitutional amendments carried out in 1996, dictating that the party which gains a relative majority of first preference votes is guaranteed a majority of seats in parliament, voters choosing a third party are giving up on having a say on which of the main parties actually wins power.

If – against all odds – a third party manages to win just one seat, this constitutional amendment no longer applies. Neither will the constitutional amendment ensuring proportionality between votes and seats will apply if a third party gets a foothold in parliament.

At that point, and only when a relative majority exists, it will be the party or coalition with the most seats (not the most votes) that gets to form a government.

And this poses a strategic problem for third parties with an aspiration to win power.

One way out of the conundrum is to form a pre-electoral coalition with an established political party. At this stage, it is bound to evoke the bitter aftermath of the Forza Nazzjonali experience, which saw the PN resenting the agreement that shed two of its seats in opposition to Marlene Farrugia’s Partit Demokratiku – and this makes it extremely unlikely for the PN to consider any coalition option again.

Labour is even more unlikely to engage in coalition experiments, which would inevitably be seen as a sign of weakness. Even getting elected by taking a ride on a bigger party did not leave a lasting positive impression for the PD, whose two MPs and founders did not recontest the elections.

Although the PD was the first third party to break the ceiling since 1962, it did not leave a lasting mark, and instead of finding itself in a ruling coalition, it found itself on the benches of a faction-ridden Opposition.

Another option would be that of focusing on a couple of districts that might guarantee a third party one or two candidates through the complicated single transferable vote system, designed by the British to curb the emergence of strong nationalistic movements in Malta and Ireland. Ireland too has retained the STV, yet it has more than six parties in parliament.

But electing a third-party candidate in one of Malta’s 13 districts depends on generating enough enthusiasm in the most favourable districts, convincing these voters they are once again on the cusp of historical change. As the MEP elections show, even a strong first preference showing requires a backup of second and third preferences, which is never forthcoming due to the solid block votes in both parties.

Even if successful, this strategy could leave the country unstable, with the relative majority party possibly outvoted in parliament by a rival coalition. While this is the norm in other countries, the experience could be traumatic for a country used to stable one-party governments.

The upside would be the end of the winner-takes-all mentality. But to get there, the new party must persuade voters that the benefits of a coalition outweigh the risks of instability.

The new party could also revert to the fallback position adopted by AD during the past three decades: Standing for elections in the hope of gaining a respectable result that may increase the pressure for electoral reform. But the outcome of this strategy has been dismal, with AD hovering around the 1.5% mark and both parties ignoring any calls for electoral reform.

2. The success of big tent parties depends on the alchemy between the personalities involved. But third parties are prone to schisms and tend to attract purists who shun compromise

As an independent, Cassola had a free hand and was a master of his own destiny, unshackled by party structures. Sure enough, he managed to bring around him an energetic ‘team’ which included people from all walks of life sharing the dream of getting a decent and honest person into the EU parliament.

But for a political party to succeed, it also needs other strong personalities who bring with them their own baggage and different sets of priorities.

Cassola, who had left AD in 2019 over conflicting positions on abortion, has found a way out of the ethical quandary by promising a free vote on contentious moral issues. This means that Cassola, who has consistently opposed abortion on demand, is now willing to work alongside people who agree with its introduction. It suggests that the new party could include people militating on opposite sides of a debate which may dominate the national agenda in the next decade.

Moreover, it raises the question of what constitutes a moral issue and what constitutes a human right. For example, surrogacy, regulation of sex work, drug laws, gender identity laws, and the recognition of living wills all pose ethical dilemmas that political parties are expected to address when elected to power. Still, beyond these quandaries, any future success depends on Cassola teaming up with other strong personalities who enable the party to have strong candidatures in a number of districts.

Who these people will be will determine whether the new party is simply a personal vehicle for Cassola’s ambitions or a real challenge to the political establishment.

3. A big tent party may lack the ideological cohesion which keeps small parties plodding on, even when faced with electoral setbacks. Success will be the driving force of the new party but failure would not be an option

Marlene and Godfrey Farrugia’s Democratic Party had already tried to project itself as a big tent party, and for a while, it attracted respected personalities like hydrologist Marco Cremona, retired army officer Martin Cauchi Inglott, and civil society voices like Cami Appelgren, amongst others.

But the party imploded after failing to leave a mark in the 2019 MEP elections. On the other hand, AD managed to survive since 1989 despite achieving very modest political results, probably because of the sense of purpose and ideological glue which kept it going despite the constant turnover of members, leaders, and officials.

Even in civil society, groups like Graffitti and Repubblika have a strong sense of purpose which often raises expectations of a future political role for their members. The new party, therefore, cannot afford to be wishy-washy and needs to find a strong glue to keep it together, possibly attracting leading voices from civil society. The promise of success may be the ultimate glue to hold activists together, but that could also be the undoing of the new party, which is bound to face an uphill battle.

4. A resurgent PN may reinvent itself as the big tent alternative

The PN may well take a leaf out of Cassola’s book by giving members a free vote on divisive moral issues, thus ditching its conservatism while giving hope of achieving a change of government to retain positive aspects of Labour’s rule.

The new party may question the PN’s credibility while projecting itself as the real opposition to policies endorsed by both the PN and PL. The PN’s disadvantage is that having just regained its unity following a decade in the wilderness, the party may not be strong enough to withstand changes which could rattle its conservative grassroots.

But the new party will not be facing a spent force and the PN is still seen by many voters as the only realistic alternative to a Labour government. Neither can one discount Labour’s ability to reboot and to renew its appeal among progressive voters as Abela hinted on Monday when he referred to the need of a serious discussions on taboos like abortion and euthanasia.

Yet a re-edition of a contest between Abela and Grech may well be a turn-off for a significant portion of voters. Turning the bipartisan contest into a three-way race may be the ultimate challenge for the new party but one which would set it apart from previous feeble attempts at shaking the system.