We are all receiving messages from political parties, from politicians in power, those in Opposition, and those on the sidelines. We are invited to receptions, breakfasts, get together, coffee mornings, parties: name it and it’s on. We are told of the good that has been done (not what has been omitted) and informed that if elected party Alpha will remove various burdens and grant this, that and the other. Party Omega then promises that it will remove this, that and the other, and grant this that and the other. Not to be outdone party Alpha then increases its generosity while in a final fling party Omega once again doubles the beneficial dose. All this of course irrespective of whether it is economically viable and of benefit to the country.

For the next few days, ordinary citizens will be wooed, courted and pampered: we are all extraordinary human beings – the most sought after in the world. Fellow citizens: seize the day: say what you have to say: do what you have to do. It will soon be over and for the next five years (presumably) we will once again revert to being ordinary humans.

Soon, post election results, a political metamorphosis - within a few hours - of the most sudden and extreme variety will occur (cicadas take 17 years). Politicians in power will soon drink of that opium and many of them will become immune to human petition and woes, quickly forgetting promises made in the heady campaign. While those in Opposition will become (or remain) the opposite: they will listen patiently, agree with what you say and promise that once in power they will activate your wishes. On this basis the party in Opposition should run the government!

What prompts such a want to serve as a parliamentarian? A job which incumbents state (and this often correctly so) is unappreciated and thankless – even from those satisfied with a range of demands stretching from housing to jobs. Some will say it is altruism personified: a sense of national duty; others the drug of power: others the perks and advantages (including financial) that goes with the post. As to the candidates’ chances of becoming parliamentarians ex-government candidates are advantaged (in that they could have contributed to national events and been of help to their constituents) and disadvantaged (in that they must surely have in the space of five years disappointed a few); those outside government are generally in a better position, being possibly critically pro-active at a national level and not probably having disappointed anyone at an individual level. Furthermore, the “being in power” is both tiring and heady: complacency and arrogance do set in, and the wish to change is ever present (in all forms and at all times) in the human mind, the grass being greener in the neighbour’s garden.

Can the voter maturely discern the honest, constantly hard-working, politician? How will the Maltese vote?

Polls may be indicative but also deceptive. Clearly all the hullabaloo entertainment dished out by the parties and aspirant parliamentarians may have an influence: cynics will also say it is pathetic. Sometimes I expect an Obama to make an appearance! The success of such an effort cannot be easily gauged: some will undoubtedly be influenced. But how many? And is the effort and money spent (valid curiosity awaits transparency on the funding/sponsorship of such costly campaigns) worth such a gain? Even if that is an unknown answer, under the present circumstances no one will dare forego this propaganda exercise. To my knowledge only one past politician did not provide this circus entertainment. Many will objectively consider the achievements of the past five years’ (or lack of them) and the proposals made in the national interest and vote for whom they think has performed best. Others may be influenced by personality, charisma, and/or oratory; others by ingrained family traditions. Some will sum up the decision as to whom to vote for on a “lesser of two evils” basis. While a few on examining the party’s (or politician’s) contribution will ponder, and here’s the rub, on that gnawing ever present vicious circle doubt, the scratch my back syndrome: is the politicians’ primary (if not sole) purpose to retain or achieve power? If it is (and many will undoubtedly say so) then would the party’s his/her acts throughout, whether at singular or universal application, been motivated and directed at this goal rather than what is best for the national interest? A “yes” rather than “no” would be a damning reply. But my guess is that most will vote on consideration of a personal nature: some assessing whether the past five years have been a “good” period for them (whether at a business or family level) and whether what is being proposed will similarly or otherwise affect them in the next five years. However, most will remember personal requirements (justified or not) and whether the response to their complaints has been met by those in power, and at most seconded by those in Opposition. This I believe will be the true mixture: we will soon have another government, whether with those in power at present - or with others – both, under some form or another claiming to be “new”.

Gone are the days when election campaigns meant pasting posters on all public and private buildings: the dirtying of Malta with leaflets indiscriminately thrown around. Carcades and the blaring of horns are however still in vogue and of recent memory: these undoubtedly further bewilder the tourist (already dumbstruck post international football matches with the cacophony and exuberant flag waving of foreign nations, when these teams did not even play!). I do hope that this noisy shower will not recur, whatever the election outcome will be. And yes my last note: let us have an election say every two years nay every year and just after Carnival time.