We have entered the last week of the election campaign, one that lacked sparks, one full of promises that just confirm how materialistic our society has become.

No long-term plans, no policies aimed to make life better, just hand-outs and freebies to make us more dependent on the government, lazier and wanting to find everything ready without working for it. At this rate, one day parties will be telling us to stay home and watch TV while still getting a salary.

The political parties have nothing to offer and, to cover their lack of foresight, shower us with gifts.

All that people look out for is what they will be getting – a lap-top, an increase in allowances, a help with the loan, tax refunds and cuts, cost of living cheques and whatnot – and the political parties, seeking to secure their vote, are there to promise them.

The mentality that we should be getting everything for free is now more predominant. It’s a pity that many, if not most, do not realise that we are getting nothing for free, because we are indirectly paying for them.

The election is no longer important to choose the party which has the better ideas; it’s won by the party that offers the better goodies.

Unless something happens in the last week that stirs matters up, this campaign will be remembered for little else other than a list of cash and material gifts that both parties have promised. Otherwise, it lacks foresight.

On either side of the political fence, we have Serie B politicians (to say it kindly) who are unimpressive, lack charisma, have been there for too long or, if they lack experience, do not show the potential that they could reach decent levels.

It’s happening around the world that politics no longer attracts people who can really make a difference in the positive sense. It’s happening in most countries that there is a dearth of strong-willed, capable politicians who really seek the interests of their community, not their own. People who have recently led countries or who are still leading them are not ones who inspire much.

Malta has not been spared from this, as the level of our politicians has increasingly taken a downward slide. Just look at the line-up in the past legislature. A glance at the list of candidates contesting on 26 March does not give one any hope that matters will improve.

Past elections

The current campaign is low-key, and will be remembered as weak. There is no major issue at stake, and it has also been free of scandals.

It is nothing like the one we had in 1987, with the democratic future was at stake after the Labour Party had led the country for five years and five months in spite of obtaining fewer votes in the election that was held previously in 1981. Malta had passed through years of civil unrest which included political violence, culminating in the Tal-Barrani incidents and the killing of Raymond Caruana at the Gudja PN club.

There is no issue in the balance such as the Labour Party pledge to remove VAT in 1996, which pushed many to vote for Labour in spite of nine years of prosperity under two PN governments led by Eddie Fenech Adami, only to realise what Labour had in mind was to replace VAT with another form of taxation that did not work.

There followed the collapse of the short-lived government of Alfred Sant, who was forced to call an early election in 1998 after months of a head-to-head confrontation with Labour’s own declared saviour Dom Mintoff.

In those 22 months of Labour government, Malta’s application to join the European Union had been frozen. Soon after winning in 1998, the PN reactivated it and membership became the hottest topic for the 2003 election, which came just five weeks after the Maltese had voted in favour in a referendum.

The 2008 election campaign will be remembered mostly for the Mistra scandal, with Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando right at the heart of it and now claiming in a book published recently that he had ultimately won that tight election for the party he then represented.

He then pushed for a referendum on divorce – much against the will of the PN – which, coupled with the internal dissent in the PN, was one of the factors that ultimately contributed to the massive win for Labour in 2013, following a long nine-week campaign which was characterised by the oil scandal.

The last election, in 2017, was also called earlier than expected, as Labour contended with the Panama Papers scandal and allegations of widespread corruption. Labour still won handsomely.

And here we are now, still battling a virus pandemic and now also being affected by the war in Ukraine. Both issues, major as they are, are however not considered as having a direct bearing on the election.

2022

It has been a monotonous, unexciting and poor campaign, from both sides. Not even the billboards the parties came up with managed to stir some life into it, except for one which was withdrawn quickly by Labour.

Both Robert Abela and Bernard Grech have spent days on the campaign trail, many times repeating what they had said the day before – which many times was the list of proposals involving hand-outs and presents. They traded some political barbs, but they lacked wit.

The absence of mass meetings did not help. In past campaigns, they were the highlight of the activities, although it must be said that for the people who attended them they were more of occasions to party rather than to listen to what their respective leader was saying. But they did add some colour.

Mass rallies and discussion activities such as the ones held in this campaign – largely as a result of the Covid-19 restrictions – are more contained, both in terms of attendance as well as enthusiasm. But, here again, the two leaders do not have the ability to raise their supporters’ passion.

And one cannot help notice that the number of Covid cases is very much on the rise since the campaign started. It means that parties and candidates are putting health issues aside, so long as they gain some more votes.

Voting time

One thing that stood out in this campaign was Robert Abela’s insistence for people to cast their vote. He said it several times. Elections start at 0-0, he emphasised.

He kept saying this in spite of surveys showing an ample victory margin for Labour. None of them put the two parties close to each other.

Abela justified his repetition saying that elections should never be taken for granted. But there is a more serious reason behind his thinking.

Abela knows he will win, but he knows that there will be a focus on the difference between the two parties.

In the last two elections, Labour won by 35,000. Abela wants to at least retain the same advantage. It’s only if he does so, or perhaps widen it further, that he will have achieved his pre-set target. He will not be happy if he wins with 22,000 votes, as some surveys have indicated. He will be happy if he wins with 44,000 votes, as some other surveys are showing.

This is because only a bigger victory will help him shirk off Joseph Muscat’s shadow. Abela will never eclipse Muscat in the hearts of Labour supporters, but a bigger victory will enable him to say that he can do better than Muscat. A smaller victory could be the start of a change in Malta’s political landscape.

So every vote counts. And ironically he might be helped by traditional Nationalist voters in this regard. Some of them are still saying that they will not exercise their right to vote after the ousting of Adrian Delia from the leadership. They are still angry that a leader who was elected democratically was kicked out on the instigation of 17 rebel MPs.

Then again, there could be a number of Labourites who are not happy with the way their party operated, and will also tear up their voting document. You get this kind of people at both ends of the political spectrum.

Debates

The debates between the two leaders were shorn of any excitement. Neither Abela, nor Grech possess the ability to liven them up.

Maybe they were not asked the right questions. Or else it’s their personality that fails to generate the necessary oomph.

In past elections, personal tension between leaders was evident, and this emerged in the first words that they said each time they faced each other.

This time round, there was no friction to boost the debates. Neither could bring up each other’s scandals as this would have possibly backfired. And neither has the skill to wind up the adversary.

So we ended up with flat, tedious and uninspiring events that left the voters, at least the neutral ones, none the wiser.