Will politics be improved by switching the electoral system to a single national constituency system?latest editorial Malta’s Sunday Times The answer is yes, but I doubt it.
It could make things even worse. Consider the following example.
During the 2017 election campaign, Labor candidates conducted home visits. Although he enjoyed a reputation for honesty (as a politician), he was running in a Labor stronghold, and his direct rivals were Labor heavyweights.
In one home, a bristling mother showed off a huge wad of her son’s unpaid traffic fines. “This is a scandal,” she said. “None of it was fair.” Our candidate pocketed a lot, but the fine was never heard again.
As you may remember, during that campaign, half of the military was promoted on the eve of the vote.
This kind of clientelism is what the editorial had in mind when advocating for changes to the electoral system.
Claim: Action should be taken to make all of Malta a single district. It would greatly reduce the trading of votes for favors that stems from the bigotry of our small constituencies.
Really? Yes, our politicians have withheld honesty because of their Labor rivals. But he could not have carried out that favor without the party leadership’s decision to use state authority for electoral purposes.
Similarly, military promotion could not occur without partisan control over the military.
The recent traffic license scandal was similar, with it being revealed that not only the Department for Transport but also agents from the Prime Minister’s Office were involved.
As for the recent disability benefits scandal, it is the scale of the industry that has caused such a stink. The cause wasn’t some rogue politician trying to steal the march by suppressing his district rivals. Without organized capture, it could not have happened.
Even if the electoral system changes, the determination of corrupt regimes to use the power of the incumbent for unfair advantage will not change.
Even if size (“smallness”) is a factor that induces clientelism, a shift to national constituencies does not suddenly make our electoral politics “big.” Administrative control and corruption will not be eliminated simply by unifying electoral districts.
And if you’re worried about political tribalism, it’s not the electoral system that steers that ship today, but partisan media and social media. Clientelism bribes those who do not have sufficient tribal unity. Tribesmen do not move votes. To them, it’s my tribe right or wrong.
Even if the entire country is unified, it will not be possible to eliminate the merciless internal divisions within the party. Just transfer it from outside to a closed room, just like anywhere else.
Another argument for making national constituencies single-electorate is to eliminate intense competition due to the fact that winning a seat can depend on a few votes.
The argument is that it reduces the influence that individual voters have over candidates. If it becomes a national constituency, the margin of victory and defeat will be wider, and there will be no need for disgraceful auctions for convenience.
The reasoning works well on paper. Let’s look at it in practice. The margin of victory for one party over another has never been greater than in the last three elections. The Labor Party is making a strong push against the National Party.
But shameful clientelism is also at an all-time high. We’re in a different league than we were before. why? Because winning big is itself a political goal. It demoralizes any opposition.
Far from eliminating clientelistic corruption, the prospect of winning big bucks actually encourages it. The aura of invincibility, the destruction of hope for change, fosters a culture of impunity.
Another reason for the move to single districts is that it will make it “increasingly difficult for candidates to make parochial promises that only concern specific communities.”
perhaps. But what about promises that cater to state lobbies and big money? It will probably increase.
In 2019, successful parliamentary candidates spent between €35,000 and €48,000 on their campaigns. The exceptions, Alfred Sant (€17,000) and Miriam Dali (€26,000), had a compensating legacy advantage.
Which candidate will access such funds without further relying on the greedy businessmen who are already threatening our democracy and security?
By raising the stakes of capital, it becomes more difficult, not less difficult, for third parties to break the current duopoly. Higher costs mean larger election machines and more compromises with donors.
If we want to break the duopoly, the answer is to introduce national standards that guarantee seats to parties that meet those standards.
Finally, even if we unify the entire country, we cannot eliminate merciless intra-party conflicts. Just transfer it from outside to a closed room, just like anywhere else.
When a system provides a party list (a list of party candidates that reflects their selection order), ruthless bargaining and infighting are not ruled out. It simply takes place within the party organization.
That system tends to seek conformist politicians who are part of the organization or ready to please their leaders. Politicians who are more independent-minded are less successful unless they create their own factions within the party.
The cost of a system based on party lists is greater centralization of power in the leadership and further exacerbation of tribalism.
Even if party lists are omitted, candidates competing in national terrain will need the goodwill of party leadership more than ever to gain visibility in the media and at press conferences.
It will continue to be important for individual candidates not just to win, but to win big. Having higher national numbers than their rivals helps determine whether they can win ministries and gain influence in decision-making forums.
The point behind my skepticism is simple. We don’t have the best of all possible worlds. On the contrary, I agree that the future of this country is at risk unless we make fundamental political changes.
But we address the problem by pointing to the real causes: weak leadership, a diminished sense of national interest, corruption all the way to the top, systematic capture, and a culture of impunity.