Power, be it financial, emotional or political is always a highly sought prize. It becomes even more important for those who come to possess it and who eventually are in a position to wield it.

There have been several instances throughout history when power has been used to dominate and to subjugate - such as in the brutal dictatorships of the last war, regimes in Africa and Asia, not to mention the not so far off spectre of Communist dominance in Eastern Europe and far right dictatorships in Spain and Portugal.

One of the worst things that can happen to a country is a power vacuum. In the past five years, we have seen it happen at least three times, once in the famously disputed election of 2000 in the United States, last year's divided German election and only more recently (and much closer to home), the Italian election.

It resulted in a wafer thin majority for the Centre-Left Unione coalition led by former EU Commission chief Romano Prodi over Silvio Berlusconi's Casa della Liberta Centre Right coalition.

Admittedly a 25,000-vote advantage over a total count of around 40 million votes is quite a shaky mandate on which to govern. The right-wingers are now blaming Berlusconi for instituting laws to give a heavily unbalanced advantage to the victor - with a 70-seat advantage going to the election winners in the Camera. He is also being roundly chastised for introducing the 'Overseas' vote that also worked against him, quite spectacularly in the Senate.

Berlusconi is refusing to concede defeat, citing the advantage held by Prodi as too small for a legitimate government. He has also called for a 'Grand Coalition' similar to Angela Merkel's in Germany - which Prodi is absolutely refusing to consider.

This situation has created a dangerous power vacuum in one of the most populous EU states and foreign governments such as those of the UK and the USA are looking on with trepidation.

With our finely polarized and tribalized electoral system, we in Malta should look at this result with some concern as the General Election starts to loom in the near distance.

Consider this scenario. What would happen if one of the large political parties would get a majority of just over a 1,000 votes? Thankfully we have already solved the issue of seats through the 1987 Constitutional Amendment which guarantees any party who gains a majority of votes to have one more seat in Parliament.

However, small majorities also raise the question of legitimacy. The 1998 episode where the Labour Party had a majority of just under 8,000 votes but just a one-seat advantage in Parliament generated a crisis that led to an early General Election being called.

It was a unique situation with Dom Mintoff voting against his own party in government, but it does raise the problem of proper electoral representation that does not reflect a clear majority.

The recent reforms to the electoral boundaries have perhaps made it easier for votes to be translated into seats. But small majorities would definitely create turmoil which could have a severe effect on governability and given our way of doing things, it could turn nasty.

Given the scenario - would there be a swift handover of power or concession of defeat in the forthcoming elections or will we face what Italy faces - a power vacuum impasse while both sides battle it out?

Electorates all over the world are getting more polarized than ever and with our all time record turnouts and bi-polar system, the recipe is in the making. The battle lines are drawn, the troops are awaiting the order to move. We should hope that the result, when it comes is clear-cut.