Being there for the people
The Maltese are no strangers to politics and political interactions. Such interactions involve the same Maltese having multiple opportunities to personally connect with politicians, being at political events, social activities or their own homes.
Those politicians who hold office, and the aspiring ones, look towards more connection with the electorate which is indeed positive for both politicians and the electorate. The ability to connect with people and to have bottom-up lines of communication is essential for politicians which strive to be effective in their role.
Being an MP and an active politician, I can evaluate the above thoughts via practice and provide my assessment in the local political context. In principle, I believe that each politician should ultimately realise that being close to the people is not an election-related matter but an everyday commitment which facilitates improved policy making and betterment of people’s lives. Being there during elections is also important however, by itself it is also very convenient.
The electorate is sufficiently intelligent to distinguish who is present for elections and who is present in a more consistent manner. This is a challenge which a politician needs to manage but which is facilitated by today’s improvements in connectivity tools and options. Throughout years of politicial activism in Malta we have witnessed various methods employed by political representatives to appeal for the electorate, some of which are only natural, some of which may be debatable and others which are downright appaling.
Telephone calls and house visits are very standard means how people connect and are also more traditional means employed by politicians. Both calls and visits should take place in a regular fashion which reflects the needs of the electorate and not during sporadic moments which only sustain the imminent need of the politician. This means that, more specifically as MPs, we are expected to be there for the people throughout the entire legislature. House visits provide a certain unique experience during political interaction because it lets us feel directly the prioirities, struggles and woes of the people which we represent. Our presence needs to be commensurate with the needs of the population, meaning that consistency is key because the needs of the country and its people are always there, albeit changing with circumstances.
One debatable action is that of delivery of freebies to attract voters. In particular here I can refer to hampers. During electoral campaigns, one could observe multiple cases where goods such as food and drink were accompanied with a politician’s photo and note card – one should be able to recall wine packs and hampers from certain Partit Laburista candidates during the 2017 general election campaign. While everybody appreciates the sharing of ‘gifts’, I am compelled to make a point regarding more vulnerable people given that I represent these directly and heartfully.
The vulnerable typically require support with foods on a very regular basis, and therefore, addressing these classes through provision of food – specifically targeted during elections periods – is appalling. This would simply go to show the lack of understadning of the social difficulties in our society, and such convenient acts not only prevent healing but probably deepen these scars of these people. These cases are unfortunately not infrequent and further consideration is needed to ensure we support the vulnerable during all times of need and independent of electoral events.
Social media is today one of the leading ways of how we interact on a daily basis. Rightly so, politicians also leverage these tools to keep closer connection with people. As with most things, the issues arise not with the tools themselves, but with the way they are used. There are those who use social media channels as a means to share information, to seek feedback, to share achievements which will benefit the people and also to gauge sentiments about an issue or another. There are also, however, those cases which use a selflaudatory tone on social media and therefore emphasise on the figure of the politician and the mileage achieved, rather than the actual recepients of our work. Here, we need to understand that social media does not replace a politician’s activity in the field. Therefore, pedantic statements on these channels do not necessarily reflect the work performed in contact with people. We need to be there, on the ground, finding comfort in people’s voices and views and not remain comfortable with social media reactions only.
The ensuing conclusion drawn is that the politician has clear reponsibilities within the respective role. The electorate’s expectiation is that we remain there as close and as frequently as possible. Recently we have heard of a number of cases from where subordinates of Cabinet Ministers were calling random households asking if any favours were needed, and targeted during the Coronavirus pandemic.
These can be considered acts of convenience and are indirectly requesting people for votes. One appreciates that the current circumstances and measures related to physical distancing have presented activists of the political class with more challenges to connect with the electorate. These challenges were to be transformed in opportunities to find new ways and means how to safeguard contact with people and keep being of genuine service.
On a personal level, I’ll continue advocating unconditional availability to my constituents and the Maltese electorate, with a sense of consistency and indipendent of events or circumstances.