Is the lesser of two evils good enough?

For decades the Labour Party represented those that wanted a more equal distribution of resources and the Nationalists represented those that wanted tradition and continuity.

For decades, the Labour Party represented those that wanted an equal distribution of resources and the Nationalists represented those that wanted tradition and continuity. In the last few elections both parties dissociated themselves from their historical ideological positions and both adhere to an internationalist elitist agenda that desires to neither redistribute nor respect Maltese traditions. When Maltese of previous generations voted, they did so with pride because they believed in their Party’s cause; it is the norm now to vote against one of the parties by giving the vote to the other because it is perceived to be the lesser of two evils.

Fundamentally, neither the PN’s nor the PL’s campaign is an ideological one. Instead, both campaigns focus their efforts on making small differences seem huge in the press. The parties will go at each in carefully choreographed debates. One side will call the other corrupt and incompetent. The other will politely wait for its turn and then call the other even more corrupt and more incompetent. Sadly, both will be right.

In this election, the parties have taken their increasing ideological similarity to the sad but logical conclusion. They now believe anything is legitimate if they get to drive the gravy train. If you think I am exaggerating the parties’ ideological similarities, consider that we now have former Labour Members of Parliament running on the Nationalist ticket and former Nationalist Members of Parliament running on that of Labour. Parliamentarians have switched teams much as footballers do and without any outward ideological conversion. We have seen also seen PN praise Labour Party’s Dom Mintoff and – amazingly – Lorry Sant at every opportunity. Those who wish to represent us are very willing to sacrifice their ideological con- victions and values – if they ever had any – to increases their chance of getting into power. The parties are separate brands of the same ideology under different leaderships competing for the right to milk the citizens dry.

In conversations with voters to win their support, they promise jobs, building permits, roads or anything else that the voter’s heart desires. Either party will be happy to bargain for the lease on your soul in exchange for a promise to provide that which they did not deliver to you when they last were in government. Name it, and it’s yours. Promise! But the fact is that we all know the parties will forget you (and their promises) as soon as the last vote has been cast. From that time until the next election campaign they look after their own (and the expensive habits of Caesar’s wife).

What this oligopoly needs is competition. As long as both parties know that their turn to drive the train will come eventually and that their seats in Parliament are more or less safe, they will not serve the interests of the voters. Sadly, the competition provided by the existing ‘third’ parties is lacking. Patri-jotti only have one obsession, and they will sell everyone and anyone in exchange for a small concession: to persecute Muslims and people of certain races. I simply fail to understand exactly what is patriotic about selling pork sandwiches. The [Greens] essentially shares the same ideology as the two others apart from a single-minded wish to make Malta less competitive by increasing environmental regulation and an even greater adoration of the EU oligarchy. None of the parties can be relied on to fight for Maltese rights in the EU, and all will sit idly by (in expensive suits) as the EU takes away our traditions, values and identity bit by bit.

This game will be played in two weeks’ time with voters being left with little choice as they elect what they perceive to be the less corrupt and less incompetent of the two parties. No one will talk about the real issues that we care about: jobs, healthcare, our country’s reputation abroad, and our lack of border control (and corrupt issuance of visas). No one will discuss the harmful laws being imposed on us by the EU that are taking away rights that we have historically enjoyed – or the dissolutions of our identity, culture and values. To take but one example, the efforts of the EU and complicity of our government to regulate hunting times and ownership of hunting rifles has made it all but impossible to hunt legally. Law-abiding hunters are therefore forced to choose between becoming criminals or stop exercising their sport. Next, it will be you…

Power will only be returned to Maltese voters when they have a real choice. However, the choice of voters is essentially withheld by the media. The TV and radio stations owned by the parties broadcast 24/7 and of course do not cover Alleanza Bidla. F-Living TV is possibly the only TV station that truly allows viewers to get a balanced point of view and the only station to date to invite Alleanza Bidla to take part. The Malta Independent is the only paper that truly lives up to its name.

The Public Broadcasting Authority is supposed to regulate the government channels and promote democracy by exposing the voters to a spectrum of views. In an agreement with the two main parties, the PBA has awarded the two main parties about 15 more TV time than Alleanza and no real chance to participate in the debate. The PBA ignores the letter of the law and the traditions of developed democracies to let the parties play on an even field in the publicly owned media and has become a tool of the main parties.

Alleanza also had a dispute with the Electoral Commission (EC). First, the EC told our candidates that could not contest all districts. However, after consultation with their own lawyer and the Attorney General, we were proved right. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the law permits a candidate to stand on all districts. (Rikors Numru 212/2017 Artikli 17 & 18).

Second, the EC delayed the application of one of our candidates that would have prevented her from contesting. We had to go to the Court of Appeal to get a ruling forcing the EC to process her application. ( Rikors Numru 210/2017). During this hearing, one of the officials perjured himself when he claimed that our candidate had not been sitting at his desk to start the procedure when in fact she had. We would probably not have one had we not taken pictures to use as evidence. How can we trust the EC when its officials are willing to perjure themselves to prevent one of our candidates from claiming her right to run for election?

We are now heading into the third conflict with the EC. The first ruling states that a candidate can apply to stand on all districts and will be permitted to do so (unless someone complains within the stipulated time). The commission accepted our own nominations to stand on all districts until someone objected, and we presented Ms Claire Mikklesen’s nomination in the same manner. Again, the commission refused insisting that she can only stand for two districts. This will probably also go to the Court of Appeal.

Why is the establishment fighting us with these means? The answer is simple. They do not believe in democratic competition. They do not truly believe giving the voters a real choice. They only believe in power. But remember, despite the odds, David did win.

I make you one promise. If elected, Alleanza Bidla will make real change happen and the fight against institutionalised corruption will be our highest priority.

To those who are considering not voting, or that do not know whom to vote for, or are considering which is the lesser of two evils, remember, Alleanza Bidla cannot be any worse than the other people. It is morally far better for sure. By voting for us, you too can make real change actually happen. And that can only be good news for all.