The clothes they wore were practically copies of each other. A dark suit, white shirt and a light blue tie, with the only difference being that the Prime Minister’s had some spots on it, while that of the Opposition Leader’s was plain.

They chose to address each other differently, with Labour leader Joseph Muscat, the younger of the two, preferring to go for the first name, Lawrence, while Dr Gonzi opted for the more formal Dr Muscat.

And they both felt comfortable with each other, admitting their agreement freely each time they found themselves on the same side of the fence, and criticising each other when they ended up miles apart. Always with a smile, and never on a personal note.

This, in a nutshell, is how the first debate between the leaders of the largest political parties can best be described. It all happened on the country’s most popular television show, Xarabank, and credit must be given to how the producers chose to go about doing it.

This newspaper has often criticised the confusing way that Xarabank often deals with topics it chooses to discuss, in particular the more serious ones. This time round, however, the way the programme developed was always under control. There was no band to interrupt the speakers, and the interventions from the public, clearly chosen beforehand, were kept to a minimum. Presenter Peppi Azzopardi also kept his distance, preferring simply to lead his two guests through a few, short questions, and then leaving them to debate the issue between them. The audience behaved properly, unlike other occasions, and this helped to have a strong, at times colourful, debate that never went beyond the limits of decency.

The format was also quite close to what we have seen in presidential head-to-head confrontations in the United States. Dr Gonzi and Dr Muscat were standing behind podiums, as if they were addressing mass meetings. Very rarely did they look straight at the camera, at the people watching from their home; often times Dr Muscat chose to look in the direction of Dr Gonzi when he was speaking, while Dr Gonzi preferred to face the audience in the studio.

The weapon that was used the most by the two leaders was a constant reference to what are commonly known as u-turns. Dr Muscat mentioned several times that what the Nationalist government is doing today is different from what the PN was saying it would do before the election. For his part, Dr Gonzi often reminded Dr Muscat of the anti-European Union stance he had taken before the 2004 referendum, and his (and his party’s) turnaround after the people had voted in favour of membership.

But the two leaders (and parties) have more in common that they would like us to believe. There were several occasions during the debate where they ended up agreeing with each other – on the shipyards, the need for better education and the fact that the banking system in Malta has not been badly hit by the difficulties that the financial meltdown has brought about elsewhere.

The widest divergence was evident on the way the government wants to increase the water and electricity rates, with Dr Muscat insisting that with the prevailing situation the government should leave more money in people’s pockets, especially with the price of oil going down to half what it was three months ago, and Dr Gonzi arguing that the government needs to cover its costs and it is preferable that it does so by raising tariffs rather than cutting down on its expenses in other areas such as education and health.

All in all, the contest – if it can be called such – ended up with no winners and no losers. It was a healthy debate that should pave the way for a more constructive way of doing politics, as both politicians wished for.