Small Parties in Australia -- Partiti Żgħar fl-Awstralja

 

I was struck by several aspects of the Australian political situation when I stepped onto this marvellous country the first time, more than 10 years ago.  The first, quite ironic, was that the head of state was Queen Elizabeth, a fact that immediately took me back in time, coming from the Republic of Malta, whose independence from British rule had been long achieved half a century ago.

 

I had also noticed state and federal governments, which Malta being a single state did not have.  There is also the split legislature between the House of Representatives and the Senate (or Legislative Assembly), which exists at the federal and all states except Queensland.

 

In Malta I always took an interest in the country's politics, and I didn't fail to do the same in Australia.  This also happened naturally for the different elections I went through, whether local, state or federal.

 

I have to say that in the short time I've been in Australia, this year's federal election seems to me to be the most interesting.  The first reasons is that for the first time, I have an experience of the election of all members of the Senate, whereas usually only half the members are elected at a time.

 

Another reason is the ever increasing support for the minor parties and independents from the electors.  In the 2013 federal election, there were many comments about senators that were elected on less than 1% of the primary vote, and ended up elected due to preferences that many people were unaware of.

 

The Liberal-National government has changed the rules, with the assistance of the Greens, with the claim that the result will be closer to the will of the people.  Unstated was the desire for the Coalition Government to remove the situation where its parliamentary agenda is frustrated by the small parties and independents.  This was doubtless the reason for the government to advise the Governor General to dissolve the entire Senate, in order to shuffle the cards and hope to end up with a more amenable Senate (meaning one with less members not from government ranks).  However in fact it may result that the Turnbull government will end up with the short straw in this.

 

I've had a look at the electoral statistics from the Australian Federal Parliament1, and drew up some graphs (see below) to better understand the trends in this space, which you can find attached to this piece.  I looked at elections from 1983 to 2013, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives.  I've grouped the party results as follows:  the Labor, Liberal, Liberal-National, National and Country Liberal parties were grouped as Big Parties (BP), and the other parties including the independents grouped as Small Parties (SP).  I found quite a few points of interest.

 

I started with the Senate, where the impact of the SP are mostly felt in day-to-day politics.  These seem to have considerable support, which from 1983 onwards was always higher than 13% of the formal voltes, and in the latest election (2013) was as high as 33%!  Nevertheless, the percentage of Senators elected was always less than the votes earned.

 

On the other hands, the BP had the opposite situation, that is the percentage of Senators they elected was always higher than the votes earned.  Therefore, a quite consistent percentage of votes, between 2-12%, that were given to the SP were wasted.

 

In the House of Representatives, there is a similar story, with the SP always elected (much) less seats as a proportion, when compared to votes, and the BP always elected more.  What was notable was the sheer quantity of votes wasted in this Parliament: between 6-12%.

 

This is a huge number of wasted votes, and is the result of the system used in districts for the House of Representatives, where there is a single winner (first past the post) in each district, an English system.

 

There is less waste in the Senate due to the proportional voting system, with more than one member being elected for each state or territory.

 

Despite the high level of wasted votes, support for SP in the elections for the House of Representatives has always been substantial, even up to 20%, and the last three elections always saw an increase, however the support level was also always less yhan that im the Senate by 3-12%.  I interpret this as supporters of SP aware of the high quantity of wasted voted in elections for the House of Representatives, and thus feeling compelled to vote for some BP candidate.

 

This to me is a travesty of democracy.  Many from the BP say this is better for political stability, but isn't it in their interest to say so?  The system currently favours the powerful, who have absolutely no interest to change their own influence.

 

Earlier during the week, the Liberal and Labor parties announced they would preference each other, to reduce the possibility of the Greens party to elect members in the House of Representatives.  It's clear that this is a major preoccupation of the BP, which are afraid of the SP and independents.  Australia, although geographically isolated, is not immune from the global trend of people sick to death of the traditional parties, which are felt not to represent them any longer, and are ready to try something different, although this is not without its risks.

 

I do think that stability is important, however I don't believe that SP necessarily lead to its lack.  I think it is far more important to have decisions that are taken in the interest of people, rather than of the privileged few, than to have stability.

 

In this country, it seems that many people are not longer affected by the fearmongering of the BP.  In principle this is good, in my view, as a free choice in elections is the pinnacle of democracy.  Nevertheless, similarly to BP not having a monopoly of good sense politics in every area, the SP and independents also do not have such a monopoly.  One makes more sense in one area, another in another, and others in none!

 

The choice is always in our hands!  We should never forget the people will get the government we deserve!

 

Nevertheless, courage!  Let us vote with the power of conviction in those we believe represent us fully.

 

----------------------

 

 

Kien hemm diversi aspetti li kienu laqtuni fuq is-sitwazzjoni politika tal-Awstralja meta rfist l-għatba ta' dan il-pajjiż meraviljuż, iktar minn għaxar snin ilu.  L-ewwelnett, kienet ironika li l-kap tal-pajjiż hija r-reġina Eliżabbetta, fatt li mallewwel ħadni lura fiż-żmien, peress li kont ġej minn Malta Republic fejn l-indipendenza mir-Renju Brittanniku kienet ilha li ħaditha ħamsin sena.

 

Kont innutajt ukoll il-gvernijiet statali u federali, li f'Malta bi stat wieħed dan ma jeżistix.  Ukoll, hemm il-qasma fil-leġislattiv bejn il-kamra tar-rappreżentanti u dik tas-Senat (jew Assembleja Leġislattiva), li teżisti fil-livell federali u l-istati kollha ħlief Queensland.

 

Jien f'Malta kont nieħu interess fil-politika tal-pajjiż, u ma nqastx li nagħmel dan fl-Awstralja.  Dan jgħodd naturalment ukoll għall-elezzjonjiet diversi li għaddejt minnhom, kemm fil-livell lokali, statali u federali.

 

Nista' ngħid li fiż-żmien qasir li ilni l-Awstralja, l-elezzjoni Federali ta' din is-sena tidher li hija l-iktar waħda interessanti għalija.  L-ewwel raġuni hi li għall-ewwel darba, qed ikolli esperjenza tal-elezzjoni għall-membri kollha tas-Senat, mentri s-soltu jiġu eletti biss nofs il-membri tas-Senat.

 

Raġuni oħra hi l-appoġġ li dejjem jidher li qed jikber fil-partiti żgħar u l-indipendenti minn-naħa tal-eletturi.  Fl-elezzjoni federali tal-2013, kien hemm diversi kummenti dwar senaturi li ġew eletti wara li ngħataw inqas minn 1% tal-ewwel vot, u spiċċaw telgħu minħabba preferenzi tal-vot li ħafna nies ma kinux jafu fejn se jispiċċaw.

 

Il-gvern Liberali-Nazzjonali bidel ir-regolamenti, bl-għajnuna tal-Partit tal-Ħodor, bl-għajta li r-riżultat ikun iktar qrib tar-rieda tal-poplu.  Mhux mistqarra kienet ir-rieda tal-Koalizzjoni tal-Gvern li tonqos is-sitwazzjoni fejn l-aġenda parlamentari tiegħu tiġi sfrattata mill-partiti ż-żgħar u l-indipendenti.  Bla dubju wkoll din kienet ir-raġuni għaliex il-gvern iddeċieda li jagħti parir lill-Gvernatur Ġenerali jxolji s-Senat kollu, sabiex jerġa jħallat il-karti, u jispera li jirriżulta f'Senat iktar maneġġevoli (jiġifieri b'inqas membri mhux tal-gvern).  Imma fil-fatt, jista' jkun li l-gvern ta' Turnbull se jibqa b'xiber imnieħer.

 

Qatt inħares ftit lejn l-istatistika elettorali maħruġa mill-Parlament Federali Awstraljan1, u ħriġt ftit grafika (ara isfel) biex nifhem aħjar ix-xejriet f'dan il-qasam, li tistgħu taraw ma' dan l-artiklu.  Ħarist lejn l-elezzjonijiet mill-1983 sal-2013, kemm tas-Senat kif ukoll tal-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti.  Ġbart ir-riżultati tal-Partiti flimkien hekk: il-partit Laburista, Liberali, Liberali Nazzjonali, Nazzjonali u Liberali tal-Kampanja (Country Liberals) miġbura bħala Partiti Kbar (PK), u l-bqija nklużi l-indipendenti bħala Partiti Żgħar (PŻ).  Sibt diversi punti ta' interess.

 

Bdejt bis-Senat, fejn l-iktar li jissemma l-impatt tal-PŻ fil-politika ta' kuljum.  Jidher li dawn għandhom appoġġ konsiderevoli, li mill-1983 'l hawn kien dejjem iktar minn 13% tal-voti li jgħoddu (formal votes), u fl-elezzjoni tal-aħħar, fil-2013, din anke telgħet għal 33%!  Madankollu, il-persentaġġ ta' Senaturi li tellgħu kien dejjem inqas mill-voti li qalgħu.

 

Mill-banda l-oħra, il-PK kellhom is-sitwazzjoni l-opposta, jiġifieri li l-persentaġġ ta' Senaturi li tellgħu kien dejjem iktar mill-voti li qalgħu.  Għalhekk, persentaġġ pjuttost konsistenti ta' voti li ngħataw lill-PŻ inħlew.  Dan il-persentaġġ kien bejn 2-12%.

 

Fil-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti, kellna storja simili, fejn il-PŻ dejjem tellgħu (ħafna) inqas siġġijiet bħala proporzjon meta mqabbel mal-voti, u l-PK dejjem tellgħu iktar.  Li kien notevoli kien kemm kienu l-voti moħlija f'dan il-Parlament: bejn 6-20%.

 

Dan huwa numru enormi ta' voti moħlija, u huwa r-riżultat tas-sistema li tintuża fid-distretti tal-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti, fejn ikun hemm rebbieħ wieħed (first past the post) f'kull distrett, sistema Ingliża.

 

Hemm inqas ħela fis-Senat minħabba s-sistema proporzjonali fil-vot, b'iktar minn membru wieħed jiġi elett f'kull stat u territorju.

 

Minkejja dan il-livell għoli ta' voti moħlija, l-appoġġ tal-PŻ fl-elezzjonijiet tal-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti dejjem kien imdaqqas, anke sa 20%, u f'dawn l-aħħar tliet elezzjonijiet dejjem żdied, imma f'kull elezzjoni dejjem kien inqas mill-appoġġ fis-Senat b'bejn 3-12%.  Dan ninterpretaħ bħala ħafna eletturi li jappoġġjaw lill-PŻ jafu li l-voti moħlija fl-elezzjonijiet għall-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti huma għolja ħafna, u għalhekk iħossuhom kostretti li jivvutaw lil xi kandidat ta' PK.

 

Din is-sistema hija fl-opinjoni tiegħi travestija tad-demokrazija.  Ħafna mill-PK jgħidu li huwa aħjar hekk għall-istabbiltà politika, imma mhux hekk jaqblilhom jgħidu?  Is-sistema bħalissa tivvantaġġja lill-kbir, u l-kbar m'għandhom ebda interess li jnaqqsu l-influenza tagħhom stess.

 

Iktar kmieni dan ix-xahar, il-partiti Liberali u Laburisti ħabbru li se jagħtu preferenzi lil xulxin, sabiex jnaqqsu l-possibiltà li l-Partit tal-Ħodor itellgħu membri tal-parlament fil-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti.  Jidher ċar li din hija preokkupazzjoni kbira tal-PK, li qed jibżgħu mill-PŻ u oħrajn indipendenti.  L-Awstralja, għalkemm iżolata ġeografikament, mhix iżolata mix-xejra globali fejn in-nies xebgħu sal-ponta ta' mneħirhom mill-partiti tradizzjonali, li ma jħossuhomx jirrappreżentawhom iktar, u lesti li jippruvaw il-ġdid anke jekk dan fih ir-riskji tiegħu.

 

Jien l-istabbiltà naħseb li hi importanti, imma ma jidhirlix li l-PŻ neċessarjament iwassal għal nuqqas tagħha.  Irrid ngħid ukoll li għalija iktar importanti li jkollok deċiżjonijiet li jittieħdu li jkunu ta' fejda għall-poplu kollu minflok għall-ftit ipprivileġġjati, milli jkollok stabbiltà.

 

F'dan il-pajjiż, jidher li ħafna nies m'għadhomx jiġu daqshekk affettwati mill-biża' li jippruvaw ixerrdu l-PK.  Din fil-prinċipju hi ħaġa tajba, fl-opinjoni tiegħi, u l-għażla ħielsa fl-elezzjoni hija l-quċċata tad-demokrazija.  Madankollu, bħal ma l-PK m'għandhomx il-monopolju fuq politika bis-sens f'kull qasam, l-PŻ u l-indipendenti ukoll m'għandhomx dan il-monopolju.  Min jagħmel sens f'qasam, min f'ieħor, u min fl-ebda wieħed!

 

L-għażla dejjem tibqa f'idejna!  Ma ninsewx li poplu jkollu l-gvern li jistħoqqlu!

 

Imma kuraġġ! Nivvutaw bil-qawwa tal-konvinzjoni f'min nemmnu li jirrappreżentana fis-sħiħ.

 

 

1http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/FedElect, retrieved 13/6/2016

1http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/FedElect, retrieved 13/6/2016

What have we learnt from Hiroshima? -- X'tgħallimna minn Hiroshima?

 

I'm referring to the event in 1945 when the United States had thrown a nuclear bomb on this Japanese city, and another on Nagasaki three days later, resulting in the death of at least 125,000 people.  This event is thought by many historians (but not by all) to have been the main cause for Japan to surrender, a development important for the end of the second world war.

 

At the end of May 2016, during the yearly commemoration at Hiroshima, an American president was present for the first time.  In his speech, President Obama reminded of the monstrous and scary power of this type of armament, which so far have never been used again in any war.  He said he hopes the world will find the courage to foster peace and to move to a world without nuclear weapons.1

 

Obama's vision is not new, and is the reason he was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.2  This is surely a noble aim, but how feasible or realistic is it?

 

The United Nations has a Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for Nuclear Armaments, which entered into effect in 1970, ratified by 191 states (including Australia and Malta), and signed but not yet ratified by another 93.3  This treaty aimed at freezing the situation at that existing in 1967, primarily with the following:

 

• •the five countries already having nuclear weapons (the US, UK, France, China and Russia (then the USSR), the so-called nuclear states) committed not to pass on nuclear weapon material or technology to others, except for pacific purposes with the precaution of verification; 

• •that other states not pursue having this capability except for pacific purposes with the precaution of verification. 

 

These ends can be seen to have failed, as other countries which didn't sign the NPT are today known to have nuclear weapons.  India and Pakistan have developed these weapons, watching closely what each other is doing, North Korea with its belligerent policy seeks to publish its nuclear programme to be taken seriously on the international stage, and a citation must be made of Israel with its policy of deliberate ambiguity on this topic, which with huge hypocrisy of the nuclear powers has never been challenged on this subject as has been Iran recently.

 

The NPT also encourages total nuclear disarmament.  Some progress has been made in this regard, with the signature of a new START treaty between the US and Russia in 2009, and a new initiative by President Obama's administration in 2013 which proposed to reduce the US and Russian arsenals by a third.

 

These are all positive steps, and more may be pursued, however I'm sceptical whether the world will ever reach the stage where nuclear weapons are completely eliminated.  At the end of the day, even a single nuclear weapon has the potential of killing hundreds of thousands of people.  The most powerful bomb ever exploded has been a Russian one, whose destructive capacity is three thousand times that of Hiroshima!

 

Will the US ever trust Russia completely to have destroyed all its nuclear weapons?  The Russia that just invaded Crimea as if nothing had happened, and quickly jails its President's opponents?  Or China, which quietly and without fanfare substantially increases its military expenditure year on year, and recently putting down its feet in waters contested by its Asian neighbours?

 

And will the latter countries trust the US, which killed its President half a century ago with a military precision attack without any responsibility having been attributed?  That has invaded a country on fabricated intelligence, convincing other nations to do the same?  That is considering changing a President so cautious militarily with one who seems to be firing cannon after another every time he opens his mouth on any subject?

 

Will India and Pakistan ever trust each other, with their wounds still raw from the million people who perished with the partition of old India, masterpiece of British rule, and with the small and rare gestures of friendship between the two countries disappearing with the first shots fired at Kashmir?

 

What can we say about North Korea, with its continuous and public boasting that it will destroy the United States?

 

And finally, to trust someone, you would expect openness and transparency.  Who will trust Israel whose ambiguity in this space is its policy?

 

No, nuclear armaments are here to stay.  Things can get better, but they can also get worse.  Deterrence, which means you won't try to destroy me because I can do the same to you, will remain I'm sorry to say.

 

The only silver lining in this sorry story is the science fiction possibility that these arms might be used in future to defend the planet from impact of some asteroid that was threatening all living creatures.  I admit to clutching at straws.

 

----------------------

 

 

 

Qed nirreferi għall-ġrajja storika tal-1945 fejn l-Istati Uniti kienet tefgħet bomba nukleari fuq din il-belt Ġappuniża, u oħra fuq Nagasaki tlett ijiem wara, li kienu nqerdu flimkien  ma' mill-inqas 125,000 ruħ.  Dan l-avveniment huwa maħsub minn bosta storiċi (imma mhux minn kulħadd) li kien ir-raġuna prinċipali li wassal lill-Ġappun biex iċedi, żvilupp importanti għat-tmiem tat-tieni gwerra dinjija.

 

Fl-aħħar ta' Mejju 2016, waqt it-tifkira ta' kull sena f'Hiroshima, kien preżenti għall-ewwel darba President Amerikan.  Fid-diskors tiegħu, il-President Obama fakkar fil-qawwa mostruża u tal-biża' ta' dawn it-tip ta' armamenti, li s'issa ma reġgħux intużaw iktar f'xi gwerra.  Huwa qal li jispera li d-dinja ssib il-kuraġġ biex isseddaq il-paċi u timxi fit-triq lejn dinja mingħajr armament nukleari.1

 

Din il-viżjoni ta' Obama mhix ġdida, u hija r-raġuni għalfejn ingħata l-premju Nobel għall-Paċi fl-2009.2  Dan huwa għan nobbli, imma kemm hu fattibbli, jew realistiku?

 

In-Ġnus Magħquda għandha t-Trattat għan-Non Proliferazzjoni (NPT) tal-Armamenti Nukleari, li daħlet fis-seħħ fl-1970, li ġiet ratifikata minn 191 stat (l-Awstralja u Malta nklużi), u ffirmata imma mhux ratifikata minn 93 oħra.3  Dan it-trattat kien immirat li jiffriża s-sitwazzjoni li kienet teżisti fil-1967, permezz prinċipalment ta' dan li ġej:

 

• •il-ħames pajjiżi li diġa kellhom armamenti nukleari (l-Istati Uniti, ir-Renju Unit, Franza, iċ-Ċina u r-Russja (dakinhar l-Unjoni Sovjetika), l-hekk imsejħa Stati Nukleari) jikkommettu li ma jgħaddux materjal jew it-teknoloġija ta' armamenti nukleari tagħhom lil ħaddieħor, ħlief għal skopijiet paċifiċi taħt prekawzjonijiet ta' verifika; 

• •li l-istati l-oħra ma jfittxux li jkollhom din il-kapaċità ħlief għal skopijiet paċifiċi taħt prekawzjonijiet ta' verifika. 

 

Dawn l-iskopijiet jista' jingħad li fallew, għax pajjiżi oħra li ma ffirmawx il-NPT illum huma magħrufin li għandhom armamenti nukleari.  L-Indja u l-Pakistan żviluppaw dawn b'seba' mitt għajn fuq xulxin, il-Korea ta' Fuq bil-politika belliġerenti tagħha tfittex li tippubblika l-programm nukleari tagħha biex tittieħed bis-serjetà fuq il-palk internazzjonali, u fl-aħħar trid tissemma l-Iżrael li għandha politika ta' ambigwità deliberata f'dan il-qasam, li b'ipokrezija kbira mill-potenzi nukleari l-kbar qatt ma ġiet sfidata fuq dan is-suġġett bħal ma ġiet sfidata l-Iran f'dan l-aħħar żmien.

 

L-NPT ukoll iħeġġeġ id-disarmament totali nukleari.  Veru li sar xi progress, bl-iffirmar ta' trattat ġdid (START) bejn l-Istati Uniti u r-Russja fil-2009, u b-inizjattivi oħra bħal dik tal-amministrazzjoni tal-President Amerikan Obama li fil-2013 ipproponiet li tnaqqas l-ammont ta' armamenti nukleari Amerikani u Russi b'terz.

 

Dawn huma passi pożittivi, u jistgħu jitkomplew 'il quddiem, imma jien xettiku jekk qattx naslu għal sitwazzjoni fejn l-armamenti nukleari jinqerdu għal kollox.  Fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, anke bomba nukleari waħda għandha l-potenzjal ta' qerda għal mijiet ta' eluf ta' nies.  L-iktar bomba b'saħħitha li qatt ġiet sploduta kienet waħda Russa, b'potenzjal qerriedi tlett elef darba dik ta' Hiroshima!

 

L-Istati Uniti qatt se jafdaw kompletament lir-Russja li qerdet l-armamenti nukleari tagħha?  Ir-Russja li qabdet u invadiet lill-Krimea qisu ma ġara xejn, u li tixħet 'il ħabs lil min jopponi 'l President tagħha?  Jew liċ-Cina, li bil-kwiet u minghajr fanfarra qed iżżid sostanzjalment l-infieq militari tagħha sena wara sena, u li qed tniżżel saqajha fl-ibħra kontestati mill-ġirien Ażjatiċi tagħha?

 

U dawn tal-aħħar se jafdaw lill-Istati Uniti, li qatlet lil President tagħha nofs seklu ilu f'attakk bi preċiżjoni militari mingħajr responsabbiltà sallum tiġi attribwita? Li nvadiet pajjiż abbażi ta' intelliġenza ffabbrikata, u kkonvinċiet lil pajjiżi oħra jagħmlu l-istess?  Li qegħda tikkunsidra tibdel president kawt militarment b'wieħed li meta jitkellem qisu qed jispara kanun wara l-ieħor, f'kull suġġett li jittratta?

 

L-Indja u l-Pakistan qatt se jafdaw lil xulxin, bil-ferita għadha friska tal-miljun persuna li mietu bil-qasma tal-Indja tal-antik, kapolavur tar-Renju Brittanniku, u bil-ġesti żgħar u rari ta' ħbiberija bejn iż-żewġ pajjiżi malajr jgħibu mal-ewwel sparatura fil-Kashmir?

 

Xi ngħidu għall-Korea ta' Fuq, bil-ftaħir kontinwu u pubbliku tagħhom li se jeqirdu lill-Istati Uniti?  

 

U fl-aħħar, biex tafda lil xi ħadd, tistenna li jkun miftuħ u trasparenti. Min se jafda lill-Iżrael li l-ambigwità f'dan il-qasam hija l-politika tagħha?

 

Le, l-armamenti nukleari hawn se jibqgħu.  L-affarijiet veru li jistgħu jinbidlu għall-aħjar, imma jistgħu ukoll jinbidlu għall-agħar.  Id-deterrenza, jiġifieri li int ma tfittixx li teqred lili għax jien ukoll nista' neqred lilek, se tibqa', jiddispjaċini ngħid.

 

L-uniku ħaġa pożittiva li nara f'din l-istorja hija l-possibiltà fantaxjentifika li dawn l-armamenti jistgħu jintużaw fil-futur biex jiddefendu lid-dinja minn xi impatt ta' xi asteroidi li tkun qed thedded lill-ħajja ta' kull ħlejqa.  Nammetti li qed naqbad it-tentufiet biex infittex il-pożittiv.

 

 

1http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/27/politics/obama-hiroshima-japan/index.html, retrieved 30/5/2016

2http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html, retrieved 30/5/2016

3http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt#, retrieved 30/5/2016

1http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/27/politics/obama-hiroshima-japan/index.html, retrieved 30/5/2016

2http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html, retrieved 30/5/2016

3http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt#, retrieved 30/5/2016