Breaking tribalism and oppression through direct democracy

Representative democracy - as the Maltese have understood it - is an oligarchic system. There is something deeply rotten, corrupt, tyrannical and sick about Maltese politics and its influence on society.

Labour’s idea of democracy has in recent years been nothing more than an exercise of power imposed over individuals, while the Nationalist idea of democracy has in turn always been an expression of corporate and even bourgeois power.

In none of these cases are we truly free, and as a responsible society, we must seek a better alternative and a better form of democracy. We must seek other alternatives, either by implementing reform, or otherwise, if our Maltese constitution does not allow such reform, then the Constitution needs to be reformed itself. In this article I will give an overview of direct democracy and an argument for its implementation in Malta and Gozo.

On the topic of the constitution, a nation’s constitution which stands in the way of individuals gaining more freedom is a despotic contract imposed upon the people. This is especially the case when the law does not apply equally to everyone - the difference between theory and practice. I truly believe that in a democratic country, the nation’s constitution needs to allow itself to easily be amended and reformed. In comparison to Malta, New Zealand’s constitution is comparatively easy to reform, as it only requires a majority of Members of Parliament to amend it.

New Zealand however, has all the necessary checks and balances to avoid the sort of abuse we have seen in recent years by our politicians in Malta. In fact, it is the poisonous tribalism which causes us so many problems, which direct democracy may be able to overcome - by making each vote about the issues, rather than about personalities.

According to the Democratic Index in 2019, Malta was classified as a ‘‘Flawed Democracy’’ with a low rating of 6.11 in 2019 as regards ‘‘Political Participation’’. This is extremely worrying. It goes to show that democracy is about more than just turning up to attend mass meetings and vote for the same old every few years.

The mindlessness of Maltese politics, and its blind hero worship of criminals and careerists is the end result of a situation where all important political decisions are taken by a small Executive committee and a cabinet that use rigid laws to protect themselves from scrutiny, while openly breaking those very same rules themselves. Therefore, we can see how a rigid hierarchy is no guarantee of fairness, freedom or stability, but can instead act as merely a tool of oppression, in service to a select few.

In a true and free democratic society, all citizens have equally proportioned political power shared between everyone. Many political theorists have thought that a free society is conceived when the Free-Market reigns over the individual or when governments instead own the means of production and rule over the laborer. True freedom in a society, however, can only be conceived by the equal redistribution of all political and economic power to all citizens.

Representative democracies are often nothing more than despotic oligarchies which use institutions and broken voting systems to provide themselves with the illusion of legitimacy. We cannot call Maltese citizens truly free, when their only freedom is to choose between a Red or Blue strongman. Choosing your oppressor has never been my idea of freedom in a democracy. Democracy for me has always meant ‘‘Civilian Control’’ which compliments the Greek etymological meaning behind the word Democracy ‘‘Demos Kratos’’, which in English translates as ‘’Citizen Rule‘’. Therefore I make no mistake when claiming that representative democracy is a misconception, while direct democracy is true democracy as it should have always been.

Direct democracy has often been called pure democracy, which has been theorized favourably by the likes of the classical liberals, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and even by the likes of Libertarian Socialists such as Georges Douglas Howard Cole. While in representative democracies, people vote for leaders to rule and legislate laws for them, in direct democracies the people themselves rule over themselves and legislate their own laws.

Though originating in its most recognisable form in Athenian Greece, around 600 B.C, direct democracy has also been put into practice in the famous 1871 Paris Commune and is seen today across Switzerland and on the level equivalent to local councils in parts of the United States, such as certain towns in Vermont. It can also be seen in territories held by Zapatistas in Mexico, and to an extent in Rojava in Syria, where democratic confederalism is practiced.

It is high time that Malta embraced the true political nature of democracy, and implemented direct democracy as a feature to be used in assemblies, committees, and local councils. Implementing it on the level of local councils would serve as a trial run for the practice to then allow it to move up the ladder, eventually allowing popular initiatives like those in Switzerland to propose amendments to the constitution. If the people in small towns and communities can get themselves to meet in hall meetings and can hold civil discussion and decide on local affairs via direct democracy, then this would be a great achievement for democracy in Malta.

Local councils have become ‘cosmetic’ in Malta, and they need to be given true political power. Local councils should be allowed to participate in the legislative process to legislate new laws in coordination with Parliament. It is granted that there needs to be more subsidiary where decisions are taken closer to communities and to this extent, Alternattiva Demokratika had already suggested a reform whereby the election of a new President would come from a two-thirds majority of votes in an electoral college composed not only of all Members of Parliament, but also representatives from all local councils according to a vote weighted by the population of each community. In the past, Alternattiva Demokratika has also proposed amending the Referenda Act to allow for propositive referenda. This would make it easier for people to express their popular will, as the current Act is very limited and restrictive.

Some people might be too lazy or perhaps too busy to participate in direct democracy and physically show up to these community meetings, to which I propose ‘‘Electronic Direct Democracy’’ which can be used easily and without fatigue, over the Internet. Some critics of Electronic Democracy suggest that digital democracy is not secure, since data can easily be manipulated - yet with the correct human verification, Electronic Direct Democracy is just as much as safe as E-Commerce and E-Banking.

As Alternattiva Demokratika Żgħażagħ, we want the Maltese people to realize that they have depended too much on the idea of the traditional nation state and it is now time to realize to start depending more on tourselves and living up to our true political responsibilities.

Giosue Agius is co-chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika Żgħażagħ.