In the late 1960s, a jaded and tired Nationalist government, having exhausted its limited life-span by the not so small achievement of obtaining independence for Malta, faced a third election under George Borg Olivier with a Cabinet of geriatrics, with an Opposition under the leadership of Dom Mintoff whose recent peace with the Church had gained him a new lease of life.

Malta had emerged from colonial times with a new sense of pride and its young intelligentsia had started to open up windows long closed and cobwebbed. Ironically, the best description of those times and how the young felt then can be found in Alfred Sant’s Silg fuq Kemmuna.

Change was in the air, and the spirit of the time required change but this was something George Borg Olivier could not understand, and neither did his ministers.

What lost the election in 1971 was Dr Borg Olivier’s reluctance, refusal, to accept change, in other terms, to change his ministers. He had a backbench which was stronger than today’s but he came out with the memorable expression “you don’t switch horses in mid-stream” – and lost. His blunt refusal then ruled out not only a last minute Cabinet reshuffle but also any change after the election.

This time, the present team of ministers is not geriatric at all. On the contrary, the government’s front bench is younger than the Opposition one. Yet it is a tired government with ministers who have been, day in, day out, in the news for years and years. Some of today’s youngsters hardly know anyone else. Collectively, as Eddie’s men (and women), they led Malta into the EU: that will be their role in history. The time has come for change.

The issue is stark: it’s either change meaning choosing the Opposition, and, in a sense, in terms of Malta’s political tradition of alternating periods in power, that is now overdue and also is, in a way, a requirement of national justice.

Or else the party now in government undergoes the process of change itself, an equally necessary and cathartic process. It either does that in government or else is forced to do it in Opposition.

To be fair, Lawrence Gonzi, who is himself a new man, ie not part of the 1987 onwards administrations, has tried to bring about change but he had huge problems along the way, not least the bevy of ministers left him by his predecessor who he wrongly did not change when he came to power. Since then he had, has, to suffer one mistake after another and to lay his administration open to Opposition criticism as an incompetent, ineffective, stumbling, administration.

Even so, some months ago, Dr Gonzi, timidly as if he had something to hide, tried to point at a different future by consorting more with the backbenchers and new candidates than with the old warhorses. Once that came out in the media, Dr Gonzi, understandably, had to backtrack.

Since then, he has had to eat humble pie and accept John Dalli into the fold but anyone can see that this tactic has now bombed big time.

Ironically, since the issue has now been left in the hands of the electorate, it may be the best and only way to effect change. Because to bring about change does not necessarily mean voting for the Opposition. One can equally vote for change by voting for the young candidates, the backbenchers, those who have not had enough opportunities over the past years.

It is true: many may be inexpert and untested, but it’s far better to have new blood within good and tested parameters than the same faces one sees on the Opposition front bench without a guarantee the old bad times will not come back, nor that a Labour victory at the polls does not start to look once again like a revolution in the streets.

There is, of course, no way for the Prime Minister to come out so bluntly and embrace change for such a move could destabilize the whole party. But there is ample scope for the party structures and the young bloods now working their hearts out silently and in impressive seriousness to pass on the message.

Voting for change is no one’s monopoly.