After 20 years of ups and downs, AD is once again at the cross-roads. Michael Briguglio has made his declaration quite clearly: "disband or be more radical". I truly hope that AD opts for the latter option because it would be a great loss for Maltese politics if the green party decides to call it a day. Admittedly I have never (in 2 elections) given AD my first preference but I did give Cassola a relatively low number on June 6. Nonetheless I believe that AD should stay.
Their departure from the scene would not be without consequences.
Their departure from the scene would not be without consequences.
- First of all the other small parties are AN and Lowell's Imperium which both fall on the right and extreme right of the political spectrum. Voters who can't be bothered with the duopoly might be more compelled to vote for the above-mentioned. Of course, AD cannot exist simply to filter to the far right vote yet this is a possible consequence of what might happen should it wither away.
- Secondly AD has a small but dedicated voter base who have never felt at home with PN and PL. These would be left without any political representation.
- Thirdly AD is the only progressive alternative to the PL which on each passing day is proving to be more populist and centrist than progressive except on those very rare occasions when Muscat speaks as a social-democrat should. I am 99.99% certain that a number of lefties have switched to AD in these MEP elections after PL's complete mess on immigration. I have not voted AD in these elections but I just might do that in the future.
- AD's departure would strengthen the PNPL duopoly more than ever.
Posts
3 Responses to 1989 - 2009 AD (?)
Very interesting post! :)
I agree that AD has built a number of dedicated followers since its inception in 1989 and that its demise would probably leave many of those individuals with a huge sense of loss. The party might need a good "facelift", but this does not mean that it should disappear.
I have never voted for AD and I strongly doubt that I would ever do so. Even though the Greens are considered to be "leftists", I still believe that their main cause could easily be included in the agenda of a party that exhibits a clearer ideology. AD has focused for too many years on specific issues such as divorce or gay marriage, but I believe that it has done this not as a political party, but as a pressure group.
To survive it has to stop relying on the unreliable support of pale blue voters and build a strong core identity based on green-left values.
Ironically while Labour is being successful by assuming the lite brand, AD has to do the opposite without appearing an old labour outfit.
Green politics are flexible (as they are not tied to a particular social class) but are also based on values.
I am wary of the word radical as I think many green-left policies are simply sensible.
One of the deficiencies of certain segments of the left is it they define themselves as extremist or radical for the hell of it. On the other hand i understand the use of the word radical to denote a rapture from the past watered down policies.
If it succeeds in building a critical mass of say 2-3% in a general election we can have an impasse.
If not we are destined to have two catch all parties.
I am sure that if AD appears to have anything like 3% on the eve of a general election we might see interesting developments. That is why some are trying to avoid this inconvenience by trying to assimilate AD.
Post a Comment