Amid political debates and legislative complexities surrounding issues such as reforming the magisterial inquiries system, Malta's neutrality, protecting public servants from criminal prosecution, or other abstract concepts, it's crucial to remember the core concerns of the average voter.
For too long now, one could discern and feel a significant disconnect between political, legal, constitutional and intellectual discourse and the daily struggles of the common person.
Common people are not interested in those kinds of debates. They're more interested in bread-and-butter issues, like how our politicians are going to bring down the cost of living, deal with things like house rent or how to drastically lessen commute time.
The ordinary man doesn't give a hoot about constitutional reform or judicial reforms or whether our MPs should be full-time and have their pay revised. Most of our politicians from both sides of the house are generally talking over people's heads, while we who are out here are struggling, hurting and not wanting to hear or see all that useless and standoffish debate.
The ordinary voter or non-voter expects politicians to talk about or know about the bread-and-butter issues, yet a lot of these just fly over their heads, and this is why they don't resonate with those who either go for a protest vote or not vote at all.
Our politicians should have learnt by now that working-class voters respond better to economic policies than to identity-based, activist-driven campaigns.
Sadly, the small, non-mainstream parties seem resigned to accepting their position as a permanent and punchless minority. They remain politically ineffectual, with candidate messaging not mattering much or being morally untenable.
The strongest candidates would be those who make bread-and-butter issues their top priorities, such as jobs and the economy, rather than immigration and racial justice, and who speak about those priorities in universalist rather than "woke", identity-centred rhetoric. This is what is expected by the working-class voters that the PN and Labour have struggled most to reach, including rural and small community voters and voters in blue-collar jobs.
Average voters will not punish candidates for advocating for civil rights, but when they adopt an activist-inspired, identity-based rhetoric, they are likely to lose precious votes. Populist candidates with a central focus on the economy will earn greater support than moderates and "woke" progressives with a focus on immigration, neutrality or electoral reform.
With the election campaign practically underway, despite an election due in about a year's time and parties setting out their pitches, our political parties would be all the wiser to examine which issues Maltese say are most important to how they will vote.
I reckon that the cost of living would top the list, with health coming in second, followed closely by the economy in general, and then immigration and overpopulation in fourth. Further down the list, one would expect to find such pressing issues as the pensions problem, family life and childcare, commuting problems, housing shortages, the environment and climate change, welfare benefits and educational issues.
Concern about inflation seems to be rearing its head again, as the government is clearly struggling to rein in the threat of a runaway cost-of-living crisis. With such a pivotal bread-and-butter issue, rampant corruption concerns risk fading into significance.
With Labour expected to win the coming election, the cost of living is clearly the issue those intending to vote Labour want Robert Abela to prioritise should he make it again to Castille. For them, probably the cost of living is one of the top issues that will decide their vote, ahead of second-placed health and the economy in general in third.
For those who intend to vote Nationalist, by contrast, expect them to be won over by the PN campaign against the threats to our rule of law, our democracy, our institutions, corruption, overpopulation and the environment, even in the absence of any clear national vision for the years to come.
Of course, there will be significant differences between the generations in terms of which issues are most important to their vote.
The sustainability of pensions and their purchasing power are more likely to be a big concern for the over-65s relative to everyone else, as are overpopulation and health and elderly care facilities.
For the youngest and first-time voters, housing should stand out as a concern, as does the environment and climate change, both of which one expects to be listed as top issues.
With a Labour-run administration where Malta is riding on the crest of a flourishing national economy, a record low unemployment rate, unprecedented favourable tax cuts and subsidised energy tariffs, there might be a good chunk of the electorate to generally vote for continuity of a type of life that, love it or hate it, they have become accustomed to, preferring more of the same rather than voting in a change of government from the current one to a nationalist administration with no discernible or doable roadmap.
At the end of the day, party identification is no longer an important predictor of voting preference because a growing percentage of voters do not express any party identification, and alternative ways to anticipate voting preferences are non-existent.
Self-classified independents will probably constitute a significant portion of voters in the upcoming general election, and the party that gains the most support from them might tip the scales in its favour.
But the danger will always remain of having a corrupt government elected by good citizens who don't vote.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer