Robert Abela and Alex Borg are complicit in the farcical performance that is debasing the upcoming general election campaign. It is a mode of politics hopelessly inadequate for the challenges that we face, and the victor should break with it.
The circus spirit is strong in Maltese politics. It makes a rowdy theatre of parliament and a clown-car parade of election campaigns. Every show is different to the extent that no two candidates are the same, but convention and a fixed repertoire of plots make for a familiar experience.
Personality trumps policy. Debate is lively but parochial. The antagonism is real but also camp and cartoonish in the Punch-and-Judy tradition. Many rising political stars have promised to do things differently. They all end up joining in because it is the only show in town.
The clash between Alex Borg's PN and Robert Abela's Labour over the coming weeks will be sometimes entertaining, often irritating, and rarely informative. The spotlight will be trained on the characters of the two leaders on centre stage, leaving most questions about the needs of the country in the shadows.
The stakes are high, but the trivialising tide of our island's politics can always rise higher.
There are strong incentives for our two main parties to avoid candour about the challenges facing the country. It is hard for Abela to describe a mess that also happens to be the legacy he is defending, while Borg's clarion call to change risks being muffled by too many caveats about intractable problems and limited resources.
The fog of campaign war is also a shroud over hard subjects. The list of issues not being debated is long, but two overarching themes would dominate if the election became an honest conversation about the nation's future: what kind of economy will Malta have and how best to realise Malta Vision 2050?
Both the PN and Labour agree that taxes must not rise while promising more reform as the magic wand that fixes services without a massive cash infusion.
Neither will confront the reality that the Treasury will need new revenue, either from taxes or borrowing, to meet even basic public expectations of what the government provides for its citizens. It's not enough to sit on the laurels of a strong and projected growing national economy.
An ageing and expanding population will place increasing stress on the health service and expose the woeful state of social care. At the other end of the demographic spectrum, an expanded entitlement to free childcare, lauded by both parties, is stymied by a shortage of nursery places. Schools are struggling to keep teachers. Among working-age adults, the prospect of buying a home or affording the rent on a place sufficient to raise a family is ever more remote without help from wealthy parents. Opportunity has become a hereditary privilege.
All of these challenges need to be managed in tandem with the demands of a transition away from carbon-intensive energy and adaptation to climate change. This will entail building new renewable power sources, adapting the national grid, insulating homes, installing far more electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and on it goes.
And those are the knowable challenges. A tidal wave of new technology powered by artificial intelligence is cresting over our society, carrying benefits and dangers of unmeasurable proportion.
Yet, despite these daunting challenges, there is a conspicuous absence of a more respectful political discourse. The current state of politics, with its focus on self-aggrandisement and self-glory, has led to a hostile, rancorous and nasty environment. This shift from intellectual disagreements to personal attacks is a concerning trend.
It's important to remember that constructive debate is the cornerstone of our political process. The negative impact of personal attacks in politics, which can erode public trust and hinder constructive debate, is a severe issue that cannot be overstated. The potential consequences of this trend are dire and could significantly damage our democratic fabric.
Despite the opulence and luxury of the Parliament, its occupants leave much to be desired in terms of behaviour, language usage and discipline.
Our democracy is converging more into an individual-centric system than an ideology-based one, quite unlike the past. As long as they manage to get elected partially or wholly using the supreme leader, they are pleased and sing the leader's praises aloud in the hope of future favours.
Maltese democracy faces an existential crisis: Robert Abela will probably return to Castille with a clearer programme for tyranny and a better understanding of enacting it than he brought to his first two terms.
The Maltese polity risks becoming a Hobbesian war of all against all.
The majority of our current politicians have made a fetish of national sovereignty while depleting the national state's capacity to deliver change.
That makes it harder for any subsequent government to make a case for collective sacrifice today in expectation of better times tomorrow. Public patience and goodwill are spent. The currency of big promises is debased.
The current political atmosphere feels exceptionally inappropriate to the gravity of the moment this time and all the more demoralising.
I fear that the "leadership" of this country have now ceased to be role models for the next generation. When the "trailblazers" of both political parties beg to be separated by a chequered rug, the next generation is rejecting their example. At least some of them. Some of the time. Thank heaven.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer