The performance was good, although some say it could have been better. But in the end it is the result that counts, and last Saturday in Helsinki, Malta was not present in the Eurovision Song Contest final for the first time in many years.

Malta’s elimination from the contest came just one day after French President Nicolas Sarkozy left Malta after a three-day stay, and the country was still bathing in the international spotlight that was afforded to the occasion.

The question that could be asked is this – which of the two events gave Malta the best exposure? Was it Sarkozy’s visit, with all those journalists, photographers and cameramen filing their reports, photos and footage that made the front pages and main headlines on the international media, or was it the build-up to Olivia Lewis’ three minutes on stage, seen by millions but not appreciated enough by many?

It’s difficult to tell, also because the two occasions are so different from each other that they hit different sectors of the European community. But what is sure is that while Sarkozy’s visit to Malta last week was free of charge, and as such was free advertising of our beautiful islands, those three minutes cost the country a vertiginous amount of money.

And this is where the problem lies with our approach to such a contest. We are spending so much money for our participation, and at the end of the day, the return for such an investment – if it can be called such – is negligible, if there is any return at all. Is it worth it?

The end result is that we give too much importance to such a contest. Yes, it is an issue that unites a country that is otherwise divided by politics, sport and village feasts. We all support our representative and would like him or her to do well. We are all happy when Malta obtains a good result and disappointed when this does not happen.

The build-up towards the national song contest that determines who our representative is going to be and, right after this has been decided, towards his or her participation in the European event, is enormous. Series of programmes are held on television and radio stations in the weeks leading up to the event. The participant goes through a gruelling period of public performances, concerts and television appearances to promote the song, here and abroad.

But, when it comes to the nitty-gritty, what is the country getting from all of this? Do other countries go through so much – and spend so much – to push their representative? What will Serbia (just to mention this year’s winners) gain from its victory? Should we continue to participate, or should we do as the Italians did, and call it a day?

The answer to this last question should be a qualified yes – qualified in the sense that we should be there with the rest of Europe (or almost), but at the same time we should take the contest for what it is, just an international song contest – where perhaps the song itself is actually the least important factor in the overall equation.

So long as the voting system remains as it is, we will still have neighbouring countries voting for each other. It is useless complaining about this because it has happened too many times and it will continue to happen. We know that our geography and history put us at a disadvantage.

So why do we continue approaching the contest in such a way? Why treat it as the be-all and end-all of Malta’s image abroad? Do we really think that our tourism industry depends on our placing? We had bumper tourism years when we did badly and negative trends when we did well.

The powers that be should evaluate Malta’s participation in such a contest, and thoroughly re-think the strategy that is being adopted.