Robert Abela this month refused to rule out calling a snap general election, particularly as the Nationalist Party goes through another unscheduled leadership election.

It's the second time in as many months that he's made this statement, setting people on maximum alert that it's something that he may genuinely be considering going through with.

But what would Abela gain by calling an early election?  And what does he risk if he does so?  The Malta Independent on Sunday dives into the pros and cons that Abela faces on whether to go to the polls early or not.

The pro: The Labour Party would likely emerge victorious

The most obvious positive that Abela will likely get out of calling an early election is that - if the polls are to be believed - he would be nailed on to win another five years in government.

The PL has polled a comfortable lead ever since it came to power in 2013, and every general election result since then has been a reflection of that. 

The European Parliament elections last year bucked that trend as the PN defied the polls and closed the gap to 8,454 votes - but there is a credible argument that the 20,255 vote margin with which the PL won the Local Council elections is closer to what a general election result would have been at that point.

Initially after last June it seemed like that PN had the momentum: the party actually led in MaltaToday surveys published in September and November last year.  But since the turn of the year, political momentum has slid back to Abela's party: this month's survey put the PL some 39,000 votes ahead; a result disastrous enough for the PN that its leader stepped down.

With the PN undergoing or having undergone a leadership change and with it being patently obvious that the newly elected leader will not be the party's first choice on the basis that their name is not Roberta Metsola, it would be reasonable to speculate that the momentum would remain very firmly in the PL's camp.

Abela may feel that calling a snap election would help him not just stay in power for the next five years - but maintain the large vote and seat majority that the PL has had for the last 12 years.

The pro: It's an ideal opportunity for Abela to renew his party further

The biggest Robert Abela buzzword in his reaction to the party's reduced support in the European Parliament elections 12 months ago was "renewal".

As the party's winning margin went from unassailable to within reach, Abela emphasised that it was important for the PL to continue to renew itself so that it could remain a force of change.

The party administration got the message and stepped aside: pretty much every top role within the PL's administration (except for leader, of course) was vacated and a new person was elected instead. 

A snap election within the next few months will allow Abela the opportunity for the next step of a party renewal to take place, by renewing his parliamentary group.  The Labour leader has already indicated his intentions in this regard by using a co-option to bring someone like Ramona Attard into Parliament - but co-options only get you so far.

The Labour parliamentary group is quite diverse: it includes several people who are 'new' (so to speak) MPs, having been elected in 2022, but it also includes several veterans who have now been in politics for a lot longer than most.

A snap election could suit Abela because it would present him an opportunity to encourage more new blood to contest the elections. 

The pro: It could condemn the PN to even more political turmoil

A snap election within the next few months would likely not be good news for a PN which will have gone through its third leadership election in eight years, and the transitory phase that comes with it.

The Labour Party would be going into such an election with a lead in the polls, an electoral machine primed and ready to go, and the power of incumbency ready to be wielded if necessary.

By contrast, the PN would be emerging from a leadership election, transitioning from one administration to another - perhaps working on its identity and what it stands for.

The party's new leader may be given some grace considering the circumstances - but the PN also knows that it cannot afford yet another landslide defeat, because it will simply make it seem like them being elected really is nothing more than a pipe dream.

That by itself may drive further voters away from the party by turning them off from politics, as they'd simply accept the status quo as it is and as something that can't be changed any time soon.

It's then a vicious circle: the more voters lose hope in the PN, the more votes the PN will lose, and the more existential turmoil the party will find itself in.

The con: He may come across as desperate to hold onto power

The biggest risk that Abela faces if he does call a snap election is that the public sentiment may actually turn against him.

The justification that Abela has given thus far to why he may consider calling a snap election has been that a PN leadership change may destabilise Parliament, and he would not let that happen.

"If parliament is destabilised as it was during the pandemic, I cannot rule out anything," Abela said last May when questioned on the prospects of an early general election.

But people can see that the PL currently has a nine- seat majority in Parliament - and they would ask how exactly a leadership change on the Opposition benches could destabilise a Parliament where the government has such a commanding majority.

Furthermore, Abela cited the chaos within the PN which ultimately led to Bernard Grech replacing Adrian Delia as leader as an example of Parliament being destabilised - but that chaos took place over summer, when Parliament was in recess, and Abela didn't call an election then anyway.

The risk for Abela is that his decision would be interpreted as a move which proves that he is desperate to maintain the seat of power by taking advantage of a party which it is in a weak situation.

Nobody likes someone kicking someone when they're down - and if people feel like Abela is taking liberties with the situation in order to maintain his hold on the seat of power, then they might punish him for it.

The con: It would be another u-turn

One of the great criticisms of Abela's administration has been that Abela has been guilty of committing a few u-turns.  The greatest one that comes to mind is his change of heart on the call for a public inquiry into the death of Jean Paul Sofia.

Calling an early election would be another, pretty hefty u-turn.  This is because Abela had said in no uncertain terms that the general election would be held in 2027 - on schedule.

"The election will be held in 2027, at the right time and moment," the prime minister told journalists outside Parliament in January when asked about the prospect of an early general election. 

The last general election was held in 2022 in that term's fifth year "and the plan is to do the same during this time," Abela said.  He had said that the government has the "strongest-ever" electoral mandate and still has plenty to deliver in terms of its electoral promises.

But just five months later and Abela was suddenly not ruling out the prospect of calling an early general election. 

Voters will question what exactly has changed between January and the present day, and Abela's explanations and justifications for his decision will be put under the microscope.  Some may find those reasonable; some may not.

The con: Abela wouldn't have completed anywhere close to a full mandate

If an early election were to be called even at the start of next year, then it would be over a full year short of Abela's administration completing its full term in government.

This is a point that the PL has suffered from ever since it came to power. 

Joseph Muscat's first administration did not govern for a full term, as he called a general election a year early.  The government elected in 2017 may have managed a full term - but it was with two different leaders, as Muscat resigned at the start of 2020 to be replaced by Abela.

Abela's government elected in 2022 is the third Labour administration - and if Abela were to call an election in late 2025 or 2026, then it's another Labour administration which did not run to its full term.

While voters haven't punished this like they punished Labour's Alfred Sant administration in 1998, the narrative that Labour isn't capable of finishing a full term in government would be writing itself.

Is that a blemish that Abela would want to have on his name like Muscat did? Maybe he would think that winning a second election by a sizeable majority would make up for it - but either way, the history books will be what they are.