At one time, elections were being held every four years. Then, I believe since the Independence Constitution came into force, elections began covering a maximum of five years in government for the winner. But on a number of occasions, this maximum period was not observed. And it did not always happen because of some major political crisis that elections were held closer to the end of a four year window.

Could this be signalling that the decision to hold elections every five years might not have been such a good idea, as a Maltese democratic government needs to be reconfirmed or replaced at the end of a shorter period? On the other hand, does there exist some ideal lapse of time which could be considered as an appropriate democratic benchmark for how long persons chosen to occupy elective state functions should stay in office? In different countries, such a period varies from three years for federal MPs in Australia, to seven years for the Presidency of France during the initial phase of the Fifth Republic (now it's five).

I very much doubt whether there can be one measure of how long elective office should be held before an election is called - a measure that, if feasible, would respond in the same way to the democratic expectations of citizens in different countries.

***

MANAGERIAL ELECTION

This is another election that is being fought and organised not around crucial political themes - what previously used to be labelled as ideology. It seems like the basic beliefs of the two main parties have become indistinguishable from each other. Instead, the overriding cleavage beeen them is seemingly about who of the two is better able to run things - managerially. It is a front across which Labour appears to be in pole position - and not just because it is in government but also on the basis of its record.

As one who long long ago specialised in managerial studies, I should I suppose be pleased with this change in the country by which instead of taking off on ideological disputes, electoral confrontation revolves around the issue of who can best manage current affairs.

***

NOT WELL-SERVED

The PN is not being well-served by media contributors who chip in to endorse it. They remind one of the English expression about people who try to dance with two left feet. While doing their best to try and convince their readers to vote PN, they still accuse it of so much incompetence and lack of credibility that readers must inevitably end up asking - but then, how does it make sense to vote for PN candidates?

One such contributor (who shall remain nameless here) has I guess, broken all records for dancing with two left feet. According to him, the present Leader of the Opposition shares all the defects which again according to him, are attributable to the Labour government's leaders - closeness to building speculators, populism, cronyism, environmental disregard, promises that go over the top, and so on and so forth. He finds practically nothing to say in the Opposition Leader's favour and considers him to be a clone of Labour government frontmen. But he skirts around any mention of where the Labour government has done well... and there are quite a number of sectors where this has been the case. One can only conclude that this contributor actually doubts as well whether the PN can sustain any of the improvements achieved by Labour. At the same time, he totally discards the notion that the smaller parties can impact the elections in any meaningful way.

Yet he still recommends his readers to vote PN. It's unbelievable... but I imagine the fellow was still quite sincere in all he said!