The decision by British parties to take part in televised US-style debates seems to have changed the face of politics in the United Kingdom.

In a sense, the debates have disarmed politicians, taking away from them their aides, spin doctors, advisers and chaperones. They battled it out ‘stark naked’ with nothing but their base knowledge, ability to react, debate and charisma (or lack of).

The UK’s political system has long been dominated by heavily chaperoned constituency visits, staged press conferences and the theatre (not in a mocking sense) which is its parliament.

In other words, the parties simply cut people out of the equation. The British public had for many a long year been shown a simple end product and were then asked to chose which party they wanted in government. But there is still a constant – much like Malta, the system is geared very much toward the personality cult surrounding party leaders which is the biggest saying factor, and not the manifestos, not the party, not the policies, and definitely not the political theory behind the being of the parties.

As many have seen in watching the UK debates, this is still very evident – and perhaps the debates have even strengthened this trend, so much so, in that this election in the UK is reminiscent of a US Presidential election, albeit with three candidates.

What is incredible is the way the British media machine immediately takes reactions from fellow party members and the general public after the debates. The real feedback which people give is nothing short of pure gold for the media, and it also allows for a very real appraisal of what the voter thinks.

Because at the end of the day, and this is something Malta really needs to accept, it is not the politicians and it is not the media or polling services which really analyse the situation and get a true picture of what people are feeling. It is the people themselves. No matter what happens, in watching a live unrehearsed debate, Joe or Jane Smith are not going to change their mind, no matter what they hear on the news, read in the papers, or are promised by the candidates in their constituency.

In watching a debate, a person can judge for themselves. They can look at people directly in the eye and make an appraisal of the candidates who are before them. Of course, a sensible person cannot make final judgment on television appearances alone. The camera likes some politicians more than others, and some people are not as confident as others with a camera in their face. But it definitely has empowered the electorate and the new format looks to have broken the political mould which has festered for generations. In a matter of weeks, the most conservative political system in the world has been transformed – just because of television. It is truly remarkable.

In Malta, we have dabbled with debates. We saw a hugely partisan crowd at the University debate between Lawrence Gonzi, Alfred Sant and Harry Vassallo. We have also seen very staged debates on television – again with partisan audiences, or with question time dominated by the political media. It is a start, but it should be improved. Independent organizations should set up these debates and take questions from the general public to be put to the leaders in future. Members of the general public should also be invited to ask questions – even perhaps over a live phone link.

Well, this is the way it should work, the way people with a nuance of intelligence would like to see it go. But then again, most Maltese a politically set or brainwashed, so one cannot really say what effect more open debates would have on our electorate. It would, however, be very interesting to watch.