And, like that, they're off. The bell has been rang, the whistle blown and Malta is to have a snap general election nine months early, in just a month's time.

There have been a mountain of opinions expressed why the prime minister has felt the need to go this early to the country. Consider the UK: Theresa May announced the election some time ago but it was only yesterday that she went to the Queen to ask for the dissolution of Parliament. Dr Muscat went to the President on Monday. And the British election, on 8 June, is going to be later than the Maltese one on 3 June.

There was a cogent reason why Mrs May decided on a snap election - to strengthen her hand during the Brexit negotiations. To date, we have Dr Muscat's explanation why he felt the need to go to the country, but it does not convince everyone.

He blamed the Opposition for bringing the country to a halt with all this talk about corruption and impeachment. Otherwise, according to him, the country is fine, the economy is strong, there are many people in jobs, unemployment is at a historic minimum, and Malta's public finances are in surplus rather than in deficit as they had been for many long years.

All the more reason why he should not have chosen an abnormally early election. In a different country and in a different time, the Head of State could have sent him back and refused to sanction an early election. Unless, that is, the election is a direct result of the conversation the prime minister had with the Head of State some days ago.

An election, however, is no substitute for a court of law. The allegations of corruption at the higher reaches of government are now the subject of court action and litigation. The votes of the public cannot take the place of a court of justice and it is grossly unfair (and undemocratic too) to seek in popular votes what one should seek from a court of justice.

But history, from the times of the Romans onwards, is replete with such travesties when popular vote took the place of justice.

The government has taken to describe the present situation, in football parlance, as a half-time between two halves of a period in power that spans (at least) two legislatures. That may be what the government hopes for, but in strict terms the government, so far, has been elected for one legislature which the prime minister's actions brought to a premature end.

As it is, the government is leaving a lot of unfinished work behind it - from public works that are midway, to improvements to the pension system and other social measures that are now being promised rather than implemented.

The government boasts it has implemented a vast majority of its campaign promises, and this is true. It had its roadmap to growth and this seems to have worked even better than expected.

But it would have been better if the whole country were to stop and consider the implications of this spurt of growth and future choices that have to be made rather than engage in partisan diatribes as we have been having.

For growth has its accompanying headaches too and the growth that has been attained has rather flimsy foundations.

It is a great pity the government had to go and besmirch its admirable economic and social record with so many episodes that left it open to charges of corruption. Even if not all allegations are proven, the perception of a clique at Castille that felt it was beyond good and evil has damaged the government's record.

As our readers know, as a business paper, we normally do not go in for political comment. But the approaching election cannot be passed on in silence, especially given its implications and consequences.