Talk of an electoral coalition between Momentum and ADPD is understandable. In Malta's political system, small parties face structural disadvantages that make survival difficult and parliamentary representation even harder. Limited financial resources, weaker media exposure and an electoral system built around 13 districts all combine to keep the political duopoly firmly in place. Against that backdrop, the idea of pooling resources and avoiding the splitting of "third force" votes appears, at first glance, to make perfect sense.

Yet what looks practical on paper may prove less convincing in the eyes of voters.

Malta's electoral system has long worked against smaller parties. In a country where national support is effectively filtered through 13 separate district contests, even a respectable overall vote share can translate into nothing at all. If Malta were one national district, smaller parties would stand a far better chance of converting votes into seats. As things stand, they must not only persuade voters to break from the Labour-PN habit, but also do so in sufficient numbers within each district to reach quota. It is a steep hill to climb, and one that no third party has managed on its own since Independence.

This is why a coalition between Momentum and ADPD is being discussed. It could reduce vote fragmentation, increase visibility and present a more coherent challenge to the two-party system. There is logic in that. A united front could, in theory, offer disillusioned voters a clearer alternative and make more efficient use of scarce human and financial resources.

But coalitions formed mainly out of necessity rather than conviction are risky.

Voters are often more perceptive than political strategists assume. If a coalition is seen primarily as an arrangement to maximise resources or improve electoral arithmetic, rather than as a genuine political project built on trust and shared vision, it may end up weakening rather than strengthening the parties involved. Small parties rely heavily on credibility. They cannot compete with the big parties on money, patronage or machine politics. Their currency is authenticity. Once that is diluted, they lose their strongest asset.

This is where the potential Momentum-ADPD alliance raises valid questions.

Arnold Cassola now leads Momentum, but he is also a former leader of Alternattiva Demokratika, which later merged with Partit Demokratiku to form ADPD. He eventually left because of disagreement over abortion policy. That history cannot simply be brushed aside. It is therefore fair to ask whether another coalition will genuinely inspire confidence, or whether it will instead remind voters of past fractures, shifting alliances and unresolved ideological fault lines.

Ironically, ADPD itself was born out of a coalition-style merger, and now it may be entering talks for another one. That may be politically pragmatic, but it also risks creating an impression of instability or opportunism. For parties that present themselves as principled alternatives, this matters.

To be fair, Momentum and ADPD do appear to share broad positions on governance, the environment and social justice. There is enough common ground to justify dialogue. But broad overlap is not the same as full political coherence. Sensitive issues, leadership dynamics and strategic priorities can quickly become points of tension once the pressure of an election campaign sets in.

If Malta's small parties are to grow, they need more than a clever alliance. They need consistency, a clear identity and a persuasive case that goes beyond simply being "not Labour" and "not PN". A coalition may help them survive the mechanics of the system. It may even improve their visibility. But unless it is built on solid principles rather than convenience, it could just as easily push voters further away.

In the end, unity for its own sake is not enough. If a coalition is to mean anything, it must stand for more than shared weakness.