The first ever debate between Robert Abela and Bernard Grech has come and gone.

The debate took place at the University of Malta, and went about as one would have expected it to go.  Both major leaders repeated things which we have already heard before, traded barbs and remarks which were perfectly predictable for anyone who has been following domestic current affairs, leaving a third party candidate – in this case ADPD’s Carmel Cacopardo – to appear as the most realistic and ground politician out of all of them.

But today’s editorial isn’t about that: it’s about the audience present for the debate.

Much has been said, particularly on social media, about how the audience and their frantic adoration for either Robert Abela or Bernard Grech provided a backdrop which typifies Malta’s political tribalism illness.

In that sense, they are right: the majority of the debate audience, with their chants of ‘Viva l-Labour’ and ‘Bernard, Bernard’ before having heard either of the leaders speak, providing ample evidence that the blind political partisanism that characterises much of the local scene is sadly alive and well even in the younger generation.

It’s something we knew already: the State of the Nation survey last summer found that around half of those aged 16 to 25 would not consider voting for a different party than they already support.  On the flipside though, the fact that half of that demographic would consider switching their political support is the highest across all age demographics.

An added critique of yesterday’s audience went along the lines of “If these are the people who are our country’s future then the country really is going to the dogs”, is something of an unjust over-generalisation on the general University population.

First of all, the first-come-first-served nature of attending the debate in itself will have attracted those most fanatical about following their respective party; people who definitely would not want to pass up the opportunity of seeing their political hero up close.

It’s likely that many others who put a bit more thought into who they vote for would have preferred to shun an event which they suspected would have had the audience that it did have. 

One can comment that the University political scene – that which centres around the election of the members of the student council – is also characterised by a similar divide which reflects the PL and PN.

This is through student organisations like SDM and Pulse.  Both of these organisations have always vehemently denied that they get any support, be it financial or otherwise, from the PN or the PL respectively – but it is no coincidence that many of those who form part of SDM end up having roles within the PN, be it as candidates or otherwise, and that those who form part of Pulse end up having similar roles within the PL.

However, the fact on the ground is that participation in both of these student political organisations is waning, and has been waning for the past few years.  While it’s never nice to see the student activism scene suffer and have its membership numbers decrease, this phenomenon could point to the notion that more and more youths are shunning bi-partisan politics.

To come back to the overarching point: we do not believe that the people who make up the country’s highest educational institution are as politically blinkered as the University debate has made it seem.

There has been significant effort put in, particularly by KSU, to organise more and more political education – but that needs to come at an earlier age and in institutions before University.

If there should be a reform to emphasise on in our educational system, it should certainly be that.