The Lesser of Two Bad Choices?

There are some who have suggested that the best way for the electorate to show its feelings about the choice available at a general election is to vote in blank. Certainly this is an option but it is an option based on apathy and negativism. A far stronger message can be delivered by voting rather than not voting. It is in the manner that one votes that a more powerful and louder message can be sent to those who put themselves forward for election. In this blog ( and in furtherance of the "fierce independence" that the "7 Days" newspaper has complimented Llanito World on) I explore some possible reasons why Gibraltar might be where it is electorally and provide an alternative way of casting a ballot paper at the next election.

One of the opinions that is more and more often voiced and heard is that, if one comes to the conclusion that the choice is not good either in favour of the GSD or of the GSLP/Liberal Alliance, then the only option is to decide who is the least bad and to vote  in that manner.  It is not a conclusion that I support or advance. This conclusion is predicated on the wrong argument. If put into effect it will deliver exactly the wrong government. It accepts the status quo that has been sold by the propaganda of the political classes, namely, that one has to choose between one party or the other and vote accordingly, ignoring the individual attributes of each candidate. Voting in this manner will not deliver the democratic revolution that is required to improve the system of government that is needed to improve and defend Gibraltar.

The wrong argument because it is predicated on the perceived strengths and weaknesses of each of the leaders of each party, presently, Peter Caruana and Fabian Picardo. I have said what I am about to say ad nauseam, the election is not an election to elect an all powerful and autocratic president. The election is to elect a representative legislature, a PARLIAMENT, from which a government and Chief Minister subsequently results. It is important to understand this fundamental attribute of our "Westminster" style of government and democracy. The "Government" results from the grouping that can rely on support from a majority of MPs. The Chief Minister is the person who has the confidence of those who are part of that majority.

The party system is an evolution of that basic concept that I have described. It is the obvious and most beneficial (for power seekers) manner in which the system can be played: rather than wait to see who is elected and then seek to form a grouping to gain power as government and Chief Minister, form the grouping before the election. If the grouping (party) is formed before the election then the grouping can choose its most popular and charismatic (as they see it) member of that grouping. They and he/she then proceed to"sell" him/her as the person to be Chief Minister.

The other members of the grouping then have an easier task all round, at the election and after being elected. They simply have to hang onto the coattails of the leader, get themselves elected and earn their salaries (and pensions after 8 years) by toeing the line and policies of the leader. Toeing the line because not to do so, threatens their individual ability to earn larger salaries than most of them would earn in the big wide world.

This party based system that has evolved is a perfect recipe for a corrupt system of government in any small jurisdiction. A corruption which is aided and abetted by weak internal party structures. Weak structures because traditionally in Gibraltar parties do not adhere, as strictly as they should and which is the norm in western democracies, to democratic methods of choosing either their candidates or leader. This criticism can be levied more against the GSD than the GSLP.  At least the GSLP do have some party structure and have some form of elections for its candidate and leader. I am just a little skeptical as to how this system is given effect to and operates in practice.

So what should a voter do when faced with these circumstances? My first suggestion is that he/she should ignore the leaders of each party. My second suggestion is that he/she should ignore party labels against the name of each candidate.  Doing this opens up the electoral choice of each voter massively because there then remains a massive choice to be made from amongst each individual candidates, from whatever party, who puts himself/herself forward for election. Each voter should analyse the individual attributes and failings of each and every candidate, irrespective of party allegiance, to decide which individual candidate deserves one of his/her vote. Having done this, it is those individual 10 crosses that will go onto one's ballot paper.

The practical effects of doing this could be very interesting. There is no doubting that each of the parties have a substantial following of committed voters, so this will not likely change. Each of the parties will receive this basic support. There is also no doubting, as can be gathered from all Opinion Polls, that there is a large number (and so hugely powerful) block of voters who are called the "undecided" who I would label as the "uncommitted", in science "free radicals". It is this block that I am appealing to.

If a large proportion of these were to follow my suggested course, one of the first effects that would be noticeable is that the leader of each party may not get as many votes as  traditionally each has. They may not even top the polls: now that alone would send a powerful message of discontent, wouldn't it? My suggestion brings more into play those who offer themselves for election as independent and those who do so within the PDP, which, presently, is not one of the two major parties, yet presents some very capable candidates. Electing some persons who do not belong to the major parties would enhance the workings and effectiveness of Parliament substantially. Another effect is that it may well get the "best brains" ( a frequently heard mantra), from amongst those putting themselves forward for election, elected into Parliament. Additionally, within the system as presently exists, it is an excellent way in which the electorate is able to flex its muscles and show those individual leaders, who consider themselves to be indispensable, that it is the electors who, in the final analysis, govern not them and that, just perhaps, none of them are as indispensable as they and some others may consider them to be.

One fear that constantly concerns me is the fear that Gibraltar should suffer a governmental and administrative vacuum. The present electoral, parliamentary and party system militate against some idiosyncratic talented persons who have much to contribute to politics, government and administration putting themselves forward for election. We must accept that, whilst Gibraltar produces a disproportionate number of talented individuals, its size is a limiting factor that does not permit it the privilege of having a system that discourages anyone from active participation in politics and government. This deficit can be resolved, to a degree, by electoral and parliamentary reform, which I have been championing for some time. Although, it is salutary to see that all the parties are now convinced of the wisdom of enacting such reforms, this is not enough (and needs to be judged once enacted), electoral behaviour is an important element in the democracy equation, which will continue to have its place irrespective of any reforms. This is a core benefit of democracy.

There are moments, I believe that we are facing one now, when the electorate should be revolutionary in its behaviour (peacefully, I hasten to add). The only advantage of a vacuum, such as the one that I have written about, is for the UK and Spain. They can exploit a vacuum for their own respective objectives, aims and policies; objectives and policies, which, by reason of the respective sizes of the UK and Spain and the ambitions and responsibilities of each, may and will from time to time transcend those of tiny Gibraltar and may not be in  its interests. Everything possible should be done to avoid that happening. It is the responsibility of the political classes to put into place objective safeguards and systems so that the chances of a political vacuum coming into existence are reduced. It is a wise electorate, carefully choosing each individual candidate and voting accordingly, that can force the issue and make it happen.