Malta’s electoral system is not presidential.

We vote for individual candidates who represent different political parties, with a single-transferable vote that passes on from one to the other until candidates obtain enough preferences to give them a seat in the House of Representatives. The rest are gradually eliminated.

Over the years, we have tweaked our system to give the party which obtains the highest number of votes enough seats with which to govern, and as much as possible establish a proportional representation in our Parliament, according to the number of first preferences given. As from the coming election, we will also have extra seats given to women to have a better balance of genders.

In spite of having this type of electoral system, the leaders carry much of the burden on their shoulders.

Since the Mintoff-Borg Olivier days and in all subsequent elections, there has always been a substantial focus on the leaders of the two main political parties. People, in particular the so-called floating voters, often decide how they will vote after comparing the two leaders.

Who of them is more credible? Who can guarantee better stability? Who would you trust the most in a time of crisis? Who would be better to steer the country forward?

These are the questions that many voters asked before casting their vote.

Since Independence, apart from the three Mintoff-Borg Olivier clashes in 1966, 1971 and 1976, we had only one other pair of leaders who faced each other three successive times – Alfred Sant and Eddie Fenech Adami in 1996, 1998 and 2003.

In between, we had one time in which Mintoff and Fenech Adami went head to head, in what is the most controversial election of them all – the one in 1981 when the Labour Party governed after picking up more seats in spite of fewer votes.

Then we had Fenech Adami twice leading the PN against the Labour Party led by Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici in 1987 and 1992.

Since the end of the Fenech Adami era, we have always had different battles in terms of leaders – Sant versus Lawrence Gonzi in 2008, Joseph Muscat against Gonzi in 2013, and Muscat facing Simon Busuttil in 2017.

They were all highly-volatile clashes, held in different political, social and historic circumstances that shaped the course of Malta’s progress.

In 2022, it will be the first time that the two leaders of the main political parties are both new. Robert Abela and Bernard Grech both took over the respective party leadership in 2020.

Both made it to the top post in their party in different but controversial circumstances, with Abela taking over from Muscat following the latter’s resignation after his office was linked to the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, while Grech beat Adrian Delia in an election rendered necessary after internal dissent shown by a substantial number of PN MPs.

So much to prove

Abela has more to lose than Grech in this election.

The Labour Party is coming from a string of emphatic wins in all elections, be they national, for local councils, or to elect Malta’s Members of the European Parliament.

Abela has taken over from Muscat, who never lost an election against three different PN leaders, all with a great margin (this includes MEP and local council elections). Labour supporters have got used to winning, and winning well. Any sign that the Labour voter-base is shrinking will not be welcomed.

There have been surveys which initially showed that the PL was heading towards a victory which would be even greater than the ones obtained in 2013 and 2017. These polls indicated a win with as many as 70,000 more votes than the PN, nearly double what was achieved five and nine years ago.

In more recent months, other surveys have shown that Labour’s lead was whittled down, while the latest surveys published last Sunday put the margin to anything between 22,000 and 44,000. Quite a sizeable difference, it must be noted.

Labour is expected to win again, but a 44,000 win would mean Abela would have achieved more than Muscat, while a 22,000 win would mean that the PN would have managed to eat well into Labour’s advantage.

Abela’s position in the Labour Party is solid, but questions will be asked if he fails to improve, or at least repeat the performances of 2013 and 2013. More doubts will creep in if Labour loses a substantial chunk of its lead.

Grech’s position

Grech has a different target, and this is precisely what Labour wants to avoid.

The PN leader knows that it is next to impossible that his party will overcome Labour, irrespective of what he says in public. So the aim will be to cut down on Labour’s lead as much as possible.

Voters will remember that this was what was being said before the 2017 election. There was only one way through which Simon Busuttil could have stayed on as PN leader – and this was to reduce Labour’s advantage from the 2013 election by half or thereabouts. Yet, in spite of the Panama Papers scandal and the anti-corruption campaign of the time, Busuttil lost the election with an even bigger margin.

Grech now faces the same predicament.

We all remember the machinations that led to his being elected to the top PN post. The only way by which he could hope to retain his position is if the PN manages to heavily eat into Labour’s lead. Otherwise, the vultures would soon start to circle around him in a bid to take over. There are people waiting for Grech’s failure to pounce on the possibility of snatching the leadership away from him.

No inspiration

Neither Abela, nor Grech are inspirational as leaders. Those voters who base their preference depending on the leader will have a hard decision to make, for the wrong reasons.

Abela is still overshadowed by the greatness – in Labour’s eyes, not in the eyes of the rest of us – of the Muscat era. The fact that Muscat is still active, loves public attention and continues to tease about a possible return to politics is not easy for Abela to handle. Muscat has said he will not contest the election this time, but his presence looms large over Abela.

Abela cannot denounce Muscat, as this would spell his downfall, and yet he cannot be seen to be too close to him, as this would kill his undeclared intention to create distance between him and his predecessor. Abela struggles to find the right balance, also knowing that he will never be loved by the PL diehards as much as Muscat was loved. At least, he will not be as disliked as Muscat was and still is.

Abela’s robotic presence is not charismatic, and he tends to talk too much. He takes long to explain himself, often resorting to repetitions which expose his uncertainties and lack of confidence. He does not have the gift of the gab either, and comes across as someone who is straining to be liked but never manages to fully reach out to his audience.

Abela has been able to keep the country afloat during the pandemic, but has not stopped, neither contained, the growing list of scandals that his underlings have been involved in. Meritocracy is a concept that was not applied in spite of the pre-2013 electoral promise, and Abela in this sense continued where his predecessor left off. Nepotism reigns supreme.

Added to this, the government has upped the tempo in considering the Maltese people as being in constant need of charity in the form of cheques being handed out in what is blatantly a vote-catching exercise. Under Abela, this method has reached unprecedented levels.

Stories that have recently emerged about Abela recently have not helped to improve his public image. The payments his office received from the Planning Authority and his links to a property deal involving a man who is now charged with kidnapping are not connected with his political life, but they certainly do not help his cause.

Likewise, Bernard Grech’s brush with the taxman and his sorting them out just before he entered politics will stick with him and his credibility, particularly when he speaks about matters pertaining to correctness and civic duties.

His public speaking also leaves much to be desired and, as if to confirm this, the PN made the mistake of offering the possibility of a comparison with Eddie Fenech Adami.

When the PN celebrated Fenech Adami’s birthday with a fund-raising activity on the party TV station, clips of Fenech Adami and Grech speaking publicly were shown in quick succession. Viewers could not help notice the difference between the power of Fenech Adami’s words and delivery, and Grech’s feeble attempts to rise to the same level. Not to mention the massive crowds listening to Fenech Adami compared with a few tens before Grech.

Grech also continues to fall into the trap of sending mixed messages. It confuses the electorate when a politician first says something, and the next day contradicts the previous position. The Labour Party has been picking on these situations with precision, denting Grech’s credibility and that of the party he leads.

Abela and Grech fail to impress.

There’s not much of a choice.