18
1
editorial With yet another year which will not get to see a KSU election following Pulse’s announcement that it won’t be contesting for KSU, Insite Malta made it its responsibility to look into the electoral system and see what faults lie within while pointing out to ways in which it can be improved. Dedicating this issue of the magazine solely to the KSU elections, take a look at what Matthew Charles Zammit has to say about the council and its ways. This edition comes as an introduction to three of our upcoming debates: (1) Education Without Representation happening on Tuesday 25th April at 12PM, (2) The Exec Showdown on Friday 28th April at 2PM, and (3) the KSU Executive Grilling happening on Tuesday 2nd May at 12PM. Join us and let your voice be heard!
Nicole Borg Executive Editor
Executive Committee
Administrative Team
Writers
Media & Designers
Magazine Design
Cover Design
Johann Agius Kristina Saliba Manuel Xuereb Nicole Borg
Damian Cuschieri Michela Cutajar Sarah Cassar Dymond
Matthew Charles Zammit
Nicole Borg Charles Mercieca Kurt Abela
Pascale Spiteri
Pascale Spiteri
2
Another scholastic year, another non-election: Geschichte wiederholt sich. With Pulse’s decision not to contest the upcoming 2017 KSU Elections for the second successive year, and with a possible single independent / third-party movement visible on the horizon, it seems that the electoral process behind the University Students’ Council will remain in the same comatose limbo that it found itself in last year. To perhaps make matters worse, such a situation has not been met by any type of outpouring or anger by anyone even remotely associated with student activism, which for anyone even remotely passionate about student representation, shouldn’t be the case. The prevailing mood by all parties, including the student body at large, was mostly an invisible shrug and a prevalent sense of “Je ne m’importe pas…” This is in itself an intriguing problem, both at face value and on a macro-societal level. In any healthy and functioning society, students should be able to express their satisfaction (or not) by not only making their voices heard, but holding those chosen to represent them accountable in a fair, manner. The question of whether or not the present University council has done a good job throughout the past eleven months is a significant one, but perhaps not as much as the need for said question to have a clear answer. Keeping sufficient pressure on what should be the largest student body, and yes even subjugating the council to a
popular vote on all offices, ensures that said council remains not only representative, but also efficient, relevant and (perhaps most importantly) remains working on behalf of the sentiment of the student population at the time, as opposed to their sole interest. And yet, with no KSU election in sight, such an opportunity has not remained available to anyone seeking to use it. At least in previous years, even if the choices were two-fold (and thanks to the toxic political climate in University, the situation was more of a choice of which political party headquarters in Pieta were going to have champagne with their caviar), there was still a decision-making element by the students every year, and it was a very important one at that. And while many would rightly point out that the Annual General Meeting is still going to be held this year, due to a number of historical precedents of abuse, statutory infringements and outright doublespeak used in previous instances, this argument doesn’t hold much water either. Even if at face value this zero-sum game of a situation is of benefit to absolutely no one, the more in-depth the examination, the worse the picture gets. While it would be much simpler to lay blame for this mess and point fingers squarely at Pulse, or SDM, KSU, the university student population, the Electoral System, or 3
Election
the bi-partisan culture ingrained deep in our society, the reality is that such a perfect tragedy needs a mixture from a number of different ingredients that need to intertwine together. Examining the root cause of such a situation is an incredible step forward, and while some talking points have been repeated ad nauseam by some, others haven’t been discussed that frequently by the relevant parties, if at all.
council, although no solid ideas or concrete proposals were brought forward in addendum with their note. This was not the first time that their cry for electoral reform was made public, as this interview with then-President Glenn Micallef on the 7th of January 2011 shows. Micallef, coincidentally, would also then decide that Pulse opt out of that year’s KSU Elections, accusing SDM of “broken promises”, which left the election that year a two-way Therein lies the aim of this article: To not only contest between SDM and Moviment Liberali. diagnose the multitude of teething troubles that exist, but rather to propose ways in So, what was the problem with this argument? order to try and find better alternatives. And How about we let SDM themselves explain it: since neither Pulse, nor SDM, and nor KSU are willing (or able) to do so much as upset “Here, one should note that despite criticising the apple cart, it’s about time that a call from the present system, for time and time again, the wilderness actually tries to do what our Pulse have failed to propose a concrete paladins of representation have failed to do. alternative and thus, making it clear that this Repeatedly, one might add. argument is the result of losing one election after another, and their lost hope to one day Section One: Bi-Partisan Propensity convince the majority of the students.“
“The time has come for an overhaul of the current archaic and anti-representative electoral system of First Past the Post, in order to create one which is truly representative of each and every student. Moreover, Pulse believes that such system should also open the door to individual contestation. It would also create the possibility of a third student political organisation to be founded.” This was Pulse’s Press Release on the 18th of March 2016, when they announced they would not be contesting that year’s KSU Elections. Their stance was clear: the electoral system is in need of a fix, and they’ve also included calls to facilitate the introduction of third parties into the political fray. The student organisation also proposed that several changes were to be done to the Executive set-up of the student 4
election
This Press Release in the meantime was released more than a month after the aforementioned one, on the 29th of April 2016. The onus of blame seems to have shifted here on Pulse, for taking an armchair critic approach to the problem and criticising the problem without actually proposing anything constructive about it. SDM conveniently seemed to have forgotten the number of times in previous years that they, or KSU on behalf of SDM, hijacked attempts at proposing amendments to said electoral system, with a case in point being this amusing quagmire back in 2012. Twelve months later, contrary to earlier speculation by certain media establishments, Pulse decided to opt out again, this time President Ayrton Mifsud stating, somewhat
photo by Siobhan Vassallo
bizarrely, that he didn’t want his organisation to be “an electoral machine”, and that his organisation was still going through “a restoration period.” Now, it’s worth noting the sardonic, even unconceivable after-taste of Mifsud’s comments when he said that he doesn’t want his organisation to be “an electoral machine.” So were his organisation’s participation (and victories) in the KSJC and KSM elections months prior not an exercise of a democratic vote after a combative electoral campaign with another organisation? What about Pulse’s electoral campaigns in the 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2013 KSU Elections: wasn’t Pulse an electoral machine at that time, as well? Pulse and SDM are political organisations first and foremost, and while it
is true that both organisations have separate campaigns and different activities throughout the year which are self-enriching for both the organisation and the student population in general, the main point of differentiation between these two organisations and other highly-active multi-disciplinary student bodies (vide JEF Malta, Insite, AEGEE, KNŻ, Third Eye to name a few) is their participation in local politics and elections. These two press releases, together with their respective backgrounds, expose in full lightning the moronic marathon (dare we say, moronathon?) that has engulfed student politics, year after year after year. Neither SDM nor Pulse have proposed anything short of a 5
election
cosmetic amendment to the electoral system, executive set-up or running of the student council in the past four to five years. SDM’s seemingly untouchable position at the helms of KSU since the 1990’s isn’t going to change in 2017 nor in the foreseeable future, so any hope resting on them to propose amendments to the Electoral system is exceptionally misplaced. Meanwhile, Pulse’s year in the University electoral wilderness has seemingly not been enough for the organisation to come up with anything resembling a proposal. Could it be that their recent victories in KSJC and KSM have softened their search for a radical change in KSU? Lest we forget that the aforementioned elections all have the same first-past-the-post system, would a change in the University electoral system automatically pass the ball to Pulse to follow suit in MCAST and Junior College as well? If so, will these changes occur? Don’t be so over-zealous in responding in the affirmative, as one would do well to recall the fiasco which broke out last November during the MCAST elections. That’s that with the contextual overview. Now, for some data…. Section Two: Superfluous
Studying
the
Seemingly
Back in February 2017, Insite’s Charles Mercieca published an exceptional and indepth survey (the first of its kind in so many years) which even now, some months later, is still as close as we can get to an exceptional representation of the current University attitude to both Pulse and SDM, as well as an expression of possible voting intentions. These answers were taken way before Pulse’s decision to abstain from the electoral process, and it could be argued that such results 6
election
actually played a role in the eventual turn of events, but their attention to detail and their calculated approach mean that they are more than applicable to a current situational examination. Unsurprisingly, the largest block of respondents belonged to those who did not intend to vote if such an election were to take place, at a reasonable 45.85%. Such a percentage is actually much lower than the actual nonvoting numbers in previous elections: In the 2015 election, the number of students who refused to participate in the elections was 72%, an increase from the 67.4% from the election beforehand: going back even further, in 2011 the non-voting percentage was a staggering 86.26%. Given these historical precedents, it can be speculated that if an election were to take place this year, the number of non-voters could possible skyrocket up the 50%, if not the 60% mark. Mercieca’s poll also shows that while a quarter of the respondents would have voted SDM, a sizeable share of the vote would have gone to a mixed vote (17.9%) which is larger than a Pulse block vote (11.25%). However, the latter two student blocks, who together have a higher percentage (29.15%) than those who would have given a block vote to SDM, would still most probably not have a say in the formation of the upcoming KSU Council, barring a major new development where a Pulse candidate would have obtained a larger share of the vote than their SDM counterpart, something which hasn’t happened in KSU Elections as yet, and in student representation has only happened once in the 2012 KSJC Election. Rather, it’s the will of the 25% SDM voters which would have been crowned victor, against about three quarters of the whole student population who
had the ability to vote, and more than 50% Section Three: Dissecting the Electoral of the students who went out to vote and Deficiency preferred an alternative or a mixed council. The entire centralisation of power with the Tyranny of the student minority, distilled. KSU structure ensures that it is regulated Pulse’s decision to opt out of the 2017 KSU solely by a single council of thirteen members, Elections, if not followed by swift action by and while certain sub-structures do exist anyone, is only making SDM’s pyrrhic march (most notably, the election of a KE and KPS to victory uncontested and automatic. And no Commissioners) for added representation, matter whatever the intention and the end they aren’t powerful enough on their own result of the uncontested nomination, this is behalf to possibly tilt the political alignment far from the norm, but rather an exception of the Council one way or another. So strictly that proves the sordid rule. speaking, the KSU Elections are the singular, most imperative say in the election of the As things stood, any possible 2017 Election student council, which in turn possess all would have been a repeat of the KSU story influence on any legislative, executive and so far, an outright KSU win for SDM. The influential powers that the council may thirteen point disparity between SDM and possess. Pulse block voters would have ensured another whitewash for them, possible to the The First Past the Post electoral system, both same level of the 2015 results. It’s evident in this specific scenario and in even bigger that whatever intentions Pulse had last year scenarios, is an incredibly efficient electoral in refusing to contest the 2016 Elections did system with its own advantages. Its inherent not help them in relation to their polling and simplicity (as compared to, say, the PR-STV chances to get even remotely close to the seat system used in Maltese elections) means that of power in Students’ House. Rather, it’s safe the machinations and costs of hosting an to assume that the only factors in play which election are reduced; the provision of a clearcould have maybe changed SDM’s margin of cut choice between two parties, and perhaps victory is simply how far the whole notion of most importantly where KSU is concerned, importance behind KSU and their respective the way the results of the election signals elections has continued to deteriorate from out a winner and a loser in an election leaves previous years, thus losing a share of SDM little room for after-voting dispute. Moreover, votes in the process. although political parties are obviously involved in elections, the FPTP allows voters to How can student representation, presently cast their decision not solely on party loyalty, with its back to the light and facing a shadow but rather in favour of a candidate against of numbing disillusionment, to break off another, thereby giving more of a face and the chains of apathetic misrepresentation, a closer link between elected and electorate. fight off the demons of near-irrelevancy and And while, as exemplified in both Mercieca’s ensure that student politics gets the light of poll and previous electoral results, this hasn’t day it deserves? affected the set-up of successive KSU councils since the system was first enacted back in the 7
election
“
How can student representation, presently with its back to the light and facing a shadow of numbing disillusionment, be able to break off the chains of apathetic misrepresentation, fight off the demons of nearirrelevancy and ensure that student politics gets the light of day it deserves?
“
8
election
photo by Siobhan Vassallo
Yet, this last advantage is unfortunately nullified by the state of politics in University. The deeply-ingrained “Us versus Them” mentality which has run amock throughout the ages by both sets of supporters from the Labour and the Nationalist parties have, somewhat unsurprisingly, diluted themselves as well in their ancillary organisations in the University of Malta. And while the relationship between Pulse, SDM and the two main political parties can be rejected ad nauseam by either organisation, its existence is extremely evident. What can be said for now is that, both for calculative and electoral purposes, both Pulse and SDM know that banking on mixed votes for an electoral victory is a highly unpredictable way of basing electoral results that can backfire spectacularly. In fact, while both organisations support such a method of voting in public, in reality they both campaign ferociously to convince the student population otherwise, depicting any mixed votes as votes against their party, rather than a compromise decision by a more-intelligent voter. Such a situation makes this important aspect of FPTP meaningless and inapplicable to the scenario in University.
votes or two thousand votes, the larger votes got the seat and the other party got nothing. Thanks to this and a number of other factors, KSU Elections also have a large number of “wasted” votes, which as already mentioned, have no say in the formation of the council and are discarded completely by the electoral system itself. Even if, as Merceica’s polling predicted, only a quarter of the total student population would have voted for SDM, this would have been enough for the organisation to obtain total control of the council. There is no space and no opportunity for anyone aside from the existing establishment to have a chance at forming part of KSU, and the odds are immensely stacked against any newcomer to the system, as we will probably see in this election. This not only adds to the disillusionment of new voters taking part in this election, but in turn scares off any other parties or third-party organisations to attempt and engage in the political process, ensuring a never-ending, self-defeating round process between the two factors.
While the words “First Past the Post” are not found anywhere in the KSU Statute, Article Alongside, the FPTP system also has its 32 and 33 do state the following: fair share of disadvantages of criticisms as well. The electoral system tends to actively “Article 32: The President, Vice-President, discriminate smaller and/or independent Secretary General, Financial Officer, parties from representation, since the spoils Public Relations Officer, International all belong to the victor of each seat. While in Officer, International Coordinator, Culture the last two elections the total number of votes and Entertainment Officer, Culture and between SDM and Pulse Candidates vying for Entertainment Coordinator, Education the same position has been considerable (with Coordinator and Social Policy Coordinator a range of about 1000 – 1400 vote difference shall be elected directly by the students while per candidate during the 2015 Election), other the Education Commissioner and the Social times such a range was down to only 300 Policy Commissioner are elected directly by votes, such as in the 2012 Election. And yet, the respective members, as described in the the end result was always the same, be it two Statute. 9
election
Article 33: In the case where there is more than one candidate contesting for a particular post, an Electoral Commission shall be appointed to launch an election within ten (10) working days. If there is only one candidate contesting a particular post, he shall be elected automatically and he has the obligation to request a vote of no confidence, by secret vote.”
Section Four: Not a Change for Change’s Sake Let the following serve not only as a viable proposal to the electoral system on its own right, but also as an ignition on a long, wellresearched walk towards viable, proper change. Such a proposal is taking a more
These articles in themselves represent one of the major stumbling blocks for any proponents of electoral reform: In order for the electoral system to be changed, there also needs to be changed on how the student council actually gets formed (so a total change of roles in the Council), or alternatively, find a common solution whereby the powers and roles of the council members gets delegated from a third party, but not directly from the electoral system. The Electoral System isn’t going to change unless the whole constitution of the Council and their nomination method gets changed, and while an alternative to simply re-inventing the electoral wheel can be found, there is no option on the table except one in which some feathers are ruffled. So what we have is an electoral system which 1) inherently discriminates in favour of the largest stakeholders against any opposition or third parties, 2) leads to a gross misrepresentation of the voting intention in the actual counsel format by completely discarding a large number of the votes cast, which in turn 3) discourages future engagement in itself, which in turn traps the whole system in a Groundhog Day scenario, 4) is impervious to change thanks to its intricate link with the Constitution of the Student council itself. Where can we head now? 10 election
practical approach than an idealistic one, in the sense that it’s trying to make the most out the present situation, rather than attempt to burn the walls and demolish the entire structure as it is. Whether Pulse and SDM’s existence are indeed beneficial to student activism and campus representation is a subject of debate for another time, and with this in mind, such
a proposal tends to allow the existence of both constitution of the Council in place via an parties while at the same time opening the internal election between the candidates. gates further to other movements. Here, using an alternative electoral system, like that of a Proportional Representation Since neither political party can be trusted in system, the candidates brought forward by taking on such a challenge, it’s apt that someone the political parties are not contesting for from outside the political establishment can a specific position from the beginning, but put forward some alternatives to the rest of rather they are forming part of a pool by said party in vying for one of the available thirteen seats. The voter would then be able to vote their preferred thirteen members from either party in a numerical manner, which can be done even in a cross-ballot manner as well. This added element of competition will not only increase the quality of the candidates proposed, but it will also increase the quality of the candidates elected as they will be the crème de la crème from both parties. Furthermore, this element of making everyone start from an equal footing will incentivise students to make more thoughtful decisions about who they prefer in the council, which in turn will further discourage element of block voting. Special focus must also be made on the designing of the ballot in question, which should not focus on the political parties contesting per se but rather on the candidates themselves. (And yes, history has shown us that small matters such as ballot design can have overarching consequences, like back in the 2000 US Election.) After the thirteen members have been elected, then it’s up to an internal election, to be presided by an the population. Let such a proposal encourage independent commission of not more than you, dear reader, in realising that not only three but no less than five members chosen can student representation be as vibrant by all parties, to preside over their internal as it should be, but there are remedies and election and choose the formation of the alternatives available to the situations at hand. Council for the forthcoming year. One alternative could focus on a change of the What are the advantages of such a system? electoral system, while allowing the current Firstly, it does away with the “winner takes all” 11 election
fortitude, and allows parties to have an equal shot at obtaining at least one out of the thirteen seats available, especially those students who are campaigning on an independent platform or from a third party. Secondly, and this goes without saying, but such an added element of competition will not only encourage a higher quantity of students vying for such a position, but also a higher quality as well. Opening up the student council in this manner will also provide the well-needed shot in the arm that student activism really needs, and there is no doubt in my mind that such enthusiasm will trickle down to even the most basic of student participation. And while some would point out that such a system is slightly more complicated than the current system in place, it’s well worth remarking that what this system lacks in simplicity, it more than makes up in terms of proper representation and making each vote put forth count. In such a small election as KSU, with the eligible pool of students is only around in the 11,000 mark and not in the millions, some small elements of straight-jacket efficiency can be sacrificed for the sake of added plurality, increased rate of participation and a more pluralistic council that stays away from towing party lines, but rather is structured in a way that must focus only on the end product of the student over anything else. Conclusion: Of Desirability?
Death
and
Devious
This sub-title is more of a rhetorical question rather than anything, because the answer is quite simple: No. Student representation in its entirety is far from dead, but it’s surely at a weakened position than in previous years or generations. And while it is true that voting in KSU elections does not completely equate with 12 election
the entire meaning of student representation, it is undoubtedly one of the highest forms of expression of such activism. Which is why it’s quite baffling that year after year, even after the farcical situation that such an electoral system finds itself in, change seems to be coming extremely sluggishly, if at all. It would be easy for all interested parties (whether you’re a passive student, a member of a student organisation, or forming part of a political group) to just sit on their laurels and consider the present situation as an unavoidable consequence of circumstances beyond our control; that a deteriorating interest in KSU and what it stands for is either an illusion, a temporary generational blip or an inescapable predicament that must be let to take it course. This author refuses to believe that either scenario is factual, but rather what we see today is the end result of years of neglect and a generic laissez-faire attitude by those involved in such a process. This has got to stop.
Discipulus Repraesentatione Mortuus Est, Discipulus Vocem Non Esse.
13
14