It is always the little things which indicate that the political parties are girding their loins for an election.

A juicy job appointment here; an out-of-character opinion piece “written” by a politician there; media people suddenly being gripped by the irresistible urge to set up their own blog in the middle of summer. You know, that kind of thing.

Now, the average observer will probably point out that with 18 months to go, surely it is far too early to get into election mode, because people’s interest cannot be sustained for that long. But, come on, this is Malta. When are we ever out of election mode? We are either gearing up for a campaign, in the thick of a campaign, debating the aftermath of a campaign, or analysing the implications of the results in minute, excruciating detail. Elections bring out the latent competitive streak in us. Give us a bit of rivalry and we ignite with power, passion and a burning desire to bring the other side down. Pity we don’t transfer that kind of hunger and grinta into excelling in sport – our own sports I mean and not the vicarious thrill some people get in siding with Italian and English teams.

While 99 per cent of the population is on summer shutdown, thinking only of the beach, parties, BBQs and weekend getaways, there is that sliver of one per cent that is busy drawing up strategies. You do realise, of course, that these behind-the-scenes machinations have absolutely nothing at all to do with what is best for the country, but are merely a means to an end.

The Holy Grail is the seat of power – in my mind’s eye I picture the Nationalist administration desperately gripping that seat with the very tips of its fingernails, while the Labour Party is firmly and resolutely trying to prise those greedy fingers off to sit there instead.

The signs of what will be a ruthless power struggle have been there for a while, but now they are like flashing neon signs, impossible to ignore or to dismiss.

The events over the last few months have turned what is normally a sleepy time of year news-wise into a series of one flash news item after the other.

It all began with the divorce referendum campaign, which towards the end turned so nasty and vicious that even some Nationalist politicians were shocked. Of course they were, because for the first time (due to their pro-divorce stance) they were at the receiving end of the full brunt of the PN media machine. So this is what it must feel like to have the onslaught of big money and an even bigger power base team up against you, they probably whispered to each other. By the time it was all over and the Yes vote was (against all odds) clinched, the Church-PN-PR-big money machine was left with a bloody nose, a battered ego, but more than that, it saw its own bleak future ahead and did not like what it saw one bit.

I think many by now have understood that this was about much more than divorce. This was the Nationalist government’s test of strength. If it could pull this off; if it could secure a No vote against divorce legislation in a country where every other person seems to be separated, then it could do anything. It would prove to one and all that it was invincible, a force to be reckoned with, a political party like no other, which will continue to be voted into office one election after another until we are dead and buried, Amen.

But things didn’t quite work out that way did they? Gonzi’s ashen face on that fateful Sunday morning spoke volumes, and please spin doctors, stop trying to tell us it was because of his own genuinely devout belief that divorce is a big no-no. Gonzi was sick to the gills because his entourage had assured him that there was no way the Yes vote would win, and they got it wrong. And if they could get this so very wrong, how on earth were they going to reverse the tide of public sentiment in time for the election?

He was in a pickle indeed.

So the summer of 2011 began, and with it came the Cyrus Engerer defection to Labour, and then some verbal gay bashing and then a father arrested over a joint and the defector charged with something he did 18 months ago. What he did was unacceptable, of course, and yet would we have ever known had he stayed nice and cosy within the PN fold? But what am I thinking? These are all coincidences, don’t be so paranoid.

Then came the Nikita Alamango plagiarizing/paraphrasing episode, undoubtedly a misstep and a blow for Labour’s image, which paved the way for more Labour bashing. The inability on her part to say, “I was wrong” showed an even worse sense of judgment and a lack of political maturity. PN sympathizers had their proverbial field day with this story – and in a way who can blame them? This was simply handed to them on a plate, although predictably enough, Labour sympathizers quickly retorted that the “other side did just as bad”, and the inevitable bickering ensued as to who is the worse plagiariser/liar/cheater.

So much for aiming for new standards in political behaviour and discourse.

This was quickly followed by the judgment of the Press Ethics Commission (PEC), which found Julia Farrugia to have breached media ethics in the way she reported the footage of an allegedly intoxicated PBS Chairman, Joseph Mizzi. I agree that Julia was wrong to have rushed to print with that story without choosing her words more carefully (as you can see from my previous sentence, the word ‘allegedly’ in journalism is crucial). No, you cannot state something is a fact, even if you are seeing it with your own eyes, unless you are 100 per cent sure. And who is to know what happened at that infamous Eurovision party other than those who were there?

However, there is the niggling feeling that two weights and two measures are being used. Let me put it this way: If the rumours circulating about Alfred Sant when he was Prime Minister (that he was fond of his drink) had been caught on film and reported as fact, would the journalist have been praised or butchered?

As we speak, Julia continues to be ripped to shreds not because of the way she handled the story (which is the only real issue), but because of her political affiliations and family background. The huge irony of course, is that those who acted all faint with horror at what Julia “did” to Joe Mizzi seem to have no qualms at going after Ms Farrugia like a couple of pitbulls. The attacks are personal: she has been called every name under the sun, ridiculed, mocked and treated with contempt. Those who were so appalled by her character assassination of Mr Mizzi are doing the same thing to her, making a mockery of the ruling by the PEC.

I, for one, was pleased with the PEC ruling because I felt a precedent needed to be set before Maltese journalism degenerates any further into News of the World mode. However, those who are now using the PEC for their own political agendas (when in the past they always claimed they had no faith in it) are simply belittling this landmark ruling. It is highly hypocritical to suddenly be quoting from the PEC ruling with glee, simply because it suits you.

Why is it so difficult to say someone was wrong or right without it becoming a partisan squabble? Are we still so stunted in our political growth that we cannot see past blue and red; are we so blind that we always need to make it about which party one votes for?

Cyrus Engerer should never have emailed those photos.

David Agius should never have cheated in his exams.

Nikita Alamango, Pippo Psaila and David Casa should never have plagiarized other people’s work.

Julia Farrugia should never have written the story about the “damning” footage as if it were fact.

Whether they vote Labour or Nationalist is not the point – because as we can see, no one can claim any real moral high ground. But who cares about morals and ethics when there’s an election to be won, right?

[email protected]