Why the PR system wouldn't work at the UoM

First things first, before I commence my arguments, I need to set a few things straight. While writing this blog, I am by no means representing SDM or any other organisation on Campus, but am writing in my own personal capacity. Secondly, this is what I am led to believe based on a period of study and a certain application of sense, and my text has therefore in no way been influenced by anyone in particular. Thirdly, I believe that all this bickering for a different electoral system - and subsequent counter-arguments in favour of the current system - are childish and unbecoming of students at tertiary level. However, that argument could be left for another time, if needed. Anyway, anyone who does not understand and grasp these points before reading is suggested to close this window/tab at this very point.

And now, onto the substance of my argument. In my honest opinion, it doesn't take much of a genius to figure out why the Proportional Representation (PR) system that PULSE proposed to introduce vis-a-vis the KSU elections will not work - only a basic knowledge of Constitutional Law is needed. Thereagain, this automatically makes me wonder if the organisation proposing the system even has law students in it and, if it does, whether the most supreme law of the land is an alien concept to them. Just like it is to Charlon Gouder, of course.

In law, the basis of the PR system is that one has a certain amount of candidates contesting an election with the aim of being elected to Parliament. Such candidates are elected according to preferences (in the form of numbers) given out by the electorate. This generally occurs via districts that are divided accordingly by the electoral commission of the day. Therefore, automatically, one already can see that the system, if it were to be applied to KSU elections, would be massively flawed. These elections are contested on an individual basis - granted, the majority of the time when the places are contested, they all end up by going to one party in particular - but the fact of the matter is that the parties present one candidate per post within KSU, whereby it is then up to the electorate to decide whether that candidate is suitable for election. This therefore means that one can have even four or five parties contesting the post of, for example, President.

Introducing the PR system would present immense logistical problems to all concerned. First and foremost, the parties would not be able to announce whether a person in particular would be given a particular role within KSU. It would be fine to determine that the person who gets the most votes becomes KSU President, and the second most votes Vice-President; but how the other roles within KSU would be filled remains a mystery. How would the election of, for example, a financial officer take place - would the person with the fifth highest amount of votes be elected, or something along those lines? And if that were the case, and the fifth person (for instance) elected were a medicine student, then how would he/she be competent enough to be in line for something like the financial officer of KSU, where a knowledge of accounts is needed - as implied by the job title. Going into an election, there would be no certainty and peace of mind vis-a-vis who would be assuming which role when elected. Or would it be the case that the first two positions would be contested via PR, while the rest of the positions would be determined by means of the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system?

As mentioned above, implementing a system whereby PR would be used as a mode of election doesn't make sense in the KSU context. When electing representatives to Parliament once every five years, one does not vote for a person on the basis that he or she will become a minister, if elected. Representatives in Parliament are elected on the basis that the electorate believes that they can do the best job possible for the country, but not on the basis of having a specific role. The KSU system presents candidates to be elected on the basis of a specific role, which is the main reason why the FPTP system has to be maintained. It ensures that if a person is best suited to his or her role within KSU, and the electorate think that that is the case, then that person will assume 'office'. From my studies, I can safely conclude that FPTP does not ensure, in any way, that bloc votes occur - such bloc votes only happen because the electorate happens to be sympathetic to a particular party or thinks that people presented by a party in particular are best suited for the post. By the same logic, when it comes to general elections, the majority of people vote either completely in favour of the PN or the PL; it is only a small percentage of votes that will be mixed.

Therefore, to conclude, I really think that there should be no debate - no matter how childish - on such a matter. If PULSE feel that the system at hand is anti-democratic because their members never get elected into KSU, then I believe that they should be looking at fielding better candidates for the KSU elections; candidates that can sway the University population to vote for them and make them a part of KSU. Until then, whining away will not do anything to improve their chances. Having said that, despite the fact that they're an independent organisation, it really does remind me strongly of a particular party and a particular individual in the local political scene. The only difference? At least PULSE actually had the decency to propose something, even though it is clearly flawed. That's much more than the above-mentioned party and individual can muster.

God Bless You all!
Matti

A Lack of Reflection

Well, it's been practically a whole week since my last blog, which generated quite a debate to say the least; a debate that I was very pleased about. In the meantime, a whole host of students have finished their exams and are already enjoying the fruits of not doing anything academically-related for a while as their summer has started, and that also means that my entertainment during these dragging times, such as Lanfranco's vlogs, will probably be no more as of the latest installment today... Anyway, as of the time of writing, 5 days, 12 hours and 35 minutes are left until I too can start to enjoy my freedom!

Tomorrow is the day where, according to estimates, around 62% of eligible voters will head to the polls for the second time in 15 months, this time to determine who will be representing Malta in the European Parliament. And while today we're meant to be "reflecting" on how the electoral campaigns have developed and who should be getting our votes, I'm still blogging about it because I don't abide by the rules. Oh, and by the way, some of us - myself included - have Local Council Elections to contend with as well, but I'm not very bothered about those because Councils do jack. When the Council magazine pops into my mailbox once every two months and I open it up to see what projects the Council has undertaken in this period of time, I practically want to start crying when, for instance, they say that they created a "traffic management" scheme in Triq Salvu Bonanno by literally painting a white oval line in the middle of a massively asphalted area. Pathetic.

So, back to my point. Tomorrow, we will be voting for five candidates who we believe are ideal to represent us in the European Parliament for the next 5 years. Or, alternatively, for any amount of time as they may wish, provided an opportunity to become Leader of one of Malta's main political parties arises due to death or simply the incapability of those running the show at either end of the political spectrum at the moment in time. I'm not one to normally show political apathy, but in this case, I can't help but do so. The Nationalist Party know that they're heading for a heavy defeat at tomorrow's polls, and the Labour Party know that they're heading for a landslide victory, just as they did in 2004.

And quite frankly, I couldn't care less. All we've heard - generally - is that these candidates, be it from whatever political tendencies that they might have, are definitely the best to represent us in Europe because of a plethora of reasons, some of which don't even have anything to do with the European Union. My opinion is that all these candidates are going to be there to represent the best interests of their pockets come the full implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, which will see the five (six) elected representatives pocket a cool €400,000 a year, excluding all the perks, expenses, accommodation etc. That works out to a salary of €8,333.33 a week; you could be mistaken that these people would be playing football for a professional club with such wages. So yes, we're essentially voting, first and foremost, for these people to pick up a big pay cheque.

I don't really see the European Parliament as an institution that works. Fine, its power will be increasing with the ratification of Lisbon, but what has really affected Malta via the European Parliament since our entry into the EU? Simon Busuttil might have presented an incredibly important report on irregular immigration, but Frontex has hardly helped solved our problems. On the contrary, they seemed to increase. Italy, on the other hand, seem to have really got the message across by sending boatloads of immigrants back to source, because unless I'm living in dreamland, I haven't really heard of any incidents involving the arrival of such immigrants since the last boat that was sent back to Africa. Further to that, the only important piece of news is that Busuttil was the most active MEP, and David Casa attended most plenary sessions. Otherwise though, there's practically no news regarding Malta that comes out of the European Parliament, whose function, it seems, is just to give their assent to newly-promulgated European Law and approve the European budget.

To conclude, as I don't want this blog to be too long, I'll just say that I will nonetheless be voting tomorrow despite these factors that I've mentioned, added to the fact that these people are going to be elected nonetheless even if I don't vote, so I might as well have my say as long as democracy permits me to do so. Furthermore, despite how arrogant the Government has become and how lacklustre the last 15 months have been for Malta overall, I will still be voting for the Nationalist candidates based on their European track record over the last 5 years, and nothing more than that. It's been difficult for me to consider European issues over national ones, but that's exactly what has to be done in such a circumstance. While the EP is a bit of a big joke, at least the PN seem to treat less as such as opposed to the PL. And I'm not even going into the merits of whether they are still anti-EU or not, I think that now this is a consideration that should be dropped once and for all, albeit still valid in a sense. Anyway, as long as idiots like Glenn Bedingfield don't get elected once again...

God Bless You all!
Matti

Yes We Can - The Politics of Faith

Before I start, I want to make this very very clear - I am not blogging about Barack Obama. As many of you know - I hope you do, let's put it this way - the slogan for the Democratic candidate's Presidential campaign is indeed these three words, three words that have a very strong meaning attached to them. Having said that though, inevitably, I will be making references here and there to Barack - there really is no option.

In Obama's various speeches, two things he said in particular have really struck me heavily - "Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity" and "[these are] three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea". The inevitable questions obviously follow - why have they struck me, and what meaning do these specific words have to me? Well, while thinking about it, I thought that these two phrases could really tie in with our faith... not just the Christian faith, actually, but to any worldwide existent faith. In as clear and concise a manner as possible, I will now try to explain what I mean by this.

Let me primarily tackle the first quote, as that seems to be the simpler of the two to decipher. While Barack is obviously making reference to the USA as being the land of opportunity and what not, I think that we have to see our faith as an opportunity - an opportunity to show that God's message is being transmitted to us and also, over and above that, an opportunity to get in touch with and subsequently get closer to God. The term "opportunity" can also be seen from the perspective of an 'outsider', someone who might not be a Christian but wants to become one. God's family is never complete, He always leaves the door open for new arrivals into the family, and hence there is always this opportunity to join His family and indeed, follow Him. Subsequently, this leads to prosperity - the more people become Christians and follow God, the more the Christian family will prosper. I feel that God is always looking for more people to follow Him, and the more people do so, the stronger our beliefs and our faith will become.

Now, for a focus on the second quote. Again, I see this as an expansion on the basis of prosperity of our faith. "Three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea - Yes. We. Can" - God is always telling us that yes, we can indeed get closer to Him. He is always welcoming us, He wants us to feel close to Him because He is our principal refuge; He is with us through the good times and the bad. The significance of "coast to coast" and "sea to shining sea" is immense though. It means that we have a God who is not just there for us and us alone, but is there, present, from one end of a country to another and indeed from one sea to the next; essentially confirming that we have a God who cares for each and every person who He has placed on the face of this Earth. If God didn't love us or indeed care for us, then we wouldn't be here, simple as. In a totally different fashion to what one might find while taking public examinations such as O or A Levels, to God we are not just a number - we are all specific individuals, each with separate characteristics but more importantly, each with our own personal relationship with Him. This is what makes God so great.

I don't know if I've been clear in my argumentation but I've tried to bring out what I think about two quotes that personally really have a deep and thoughtful meaning.

God Bless You all!
Matti

Once Bitten, Twice Shy

Whatever the circumstances might be and whether you like him or not - you have always got to give credit to a man who not only defies the odds, but slaps them in the face as he comes out triumphant. Take Jason Micallef for instance. He is a man who has been vehemently criticised by those in his own party, including his predecessor Jimmy Magro, and has also been named as one of the main reasons why the MLP lost the last General Elections. Yet he still succeeded in getting himself re-elected as the Secretary General of the Labour Party. Emerging victorious with 44.2% of the delegates votes, not only was his election surprising, and perhaps shocking to some, but the majority margin of votes in his favour makes us question this whole image of a "new" Labour since so many within its ranks seem content and supportive of that which was there before. Congratulations to him for managing to achieve what he has, and for doing to so with such flying colours, however, now that the voting is over, and looking back on all that has been said and done, would we be completely irrational if we asked whether Labour has made a great mistake, by putting its faith, for a second successive term, in the 'teethy' man behind the smirk: Jason Micallef.

When Alfred Sant resigned as leader of the MLP following a third consecutive loss, the prospect of a real ‘Bidu Ġdid’ started to seem like it might actually be a viable reality. A new leader would mean new ideas and possibly even a new approach to politics. It was clear from the offset that Joseph Muscat was the favoured candidate within the party, and when election time came along, this was proven. Although George Abela, his main rival for the post, took the elections to a second round of voting, evidently Muscat was all but set to becoming the new leader, which he ultimately did. In many ways, he is Alfred Sant's polar opposite, for he is a young and energetic leader and although still fresh, he has had the time to learn the ropes of local politics, and he is someone reaches out and appeals to the people. He made us question our doubts, for perhaps he was the right man, and perhaps he signalled the new beginning which once seemed so far off.

But that, unfortunately, is where it all ended. When Anglu Farrugia and Toni Abela were elected as deputy leaders for parliamentary and party affairs respectively, it was yet another case of déjà vu for the MLP – replacing the bad with the worse. It seemed as if conservatism once again reigned supreme amongst the voting delegates of the party; a case of sticking to and voting for who they are familiar with, rather than he who brings the best package to the table. This is also the case with Jason’s re-election: through him, the delegates have reinstated the supposed weak link within the party, the person who many love to hate due to his arrogant nature.

Everyone within a political party knows the importance of a secretary general – he is essentially responsible for the party’s day-to-day running, and also plays a central role in the party’s administration come election period. While I cannot judge his actions with regards the former, it is in the latter that he comprehensively failed last time out. While Joe Saliba was knocking on people’s doors asking for them to vote for the PN, Micallef was confident that the MLP were going to win the election by a considerable margin. While Joe Saliba knew how much work the PN had to do in order to remain in government, Micallef believed that the election was won even before it started. While Joe Saliba acknowledged that the government had made mistakes in the past legislature and was willing to improve and not repeat the same errors, Micallef refused to accept past mistakes and showed his arrogant ignorance, not even knowing basic facts like how many new voters there were in last March’s election.

With time I may be proven wrong, but to be quite honest, I sincerely doubt this will be the case. The bottom line is that Joseph Muscat intended his leadership to mark the beginning of a new era. His intentions were for a fresher Labour and a clean start. He wanted a team made up of new faces, but what he's ended up with is firmly the opposite. And as far as faces go, you've got to feel sorry for the man, having to go to work every morning and be greeted by that smirk.