Christmas has come early in Malta. It has arrived in the middle of an election campaign, with both major political parties behaving like contestants in a bidding war over who can promise the most.
Grants, super bonuses, pensions, children's allowances, university stipends, transport subsidies, housing schemes, energy support, arts passes, tax cuts and flexible working measures are being rolled out daily. If voters can think of a benefit, chances are one of the parties has already promised it - and if one side announces it first, the other quickly responds with a sweeter version or a criticism that the proposal does not go far enough, or that the numbers don't add up.
Election campaigns have always involved promises. Political parties naturally seek to appeal to voters and offer incentives. But this campaign has crossed into unprecedented territory. It has become a competition in generosity, detached from long-term sustainability and driven by the belief that elections can be won through financial handouts and immediate gratification.
Labour has perfected this model over the past 13 years. Its formula has been simple: keep the economy moving, distribute benefits widely, and ensure that voters feel financially cushioned enough to overlook deeper institutional concerns such as corruption scandals, nepotism, weak governance and the erosion of standards in public life. The party has mastered the politics of patronage, presenting itself as a government ready to intervene in every aspect of life with another scheme, another subsidy or another cheque.
This election campaign has taken that approach to another level. Labour is promising more and more, portraying itself as the provider and protector of every social and economic need. Voters immediately grasp what a €1,000 bonus means. There is an increasingly paternalistic tone to this style of politics, as though the State must constantly step in to solve problems.
The Nationalist Party, meanwhile, finds itself trapped in Labour's terrain. While trying to present a fundamentally different economic vision, it is trying to compete within the same framework, fearful that voters will interpret restraint as weakness or austerity. The PN understands that tangible promises resonate. A complex economic reform package is not easy to understand, but everyone knows what a tax cut means for their wallet.
And so the race continues, with both parties falling over each other in the attempt to win favour.
The danger is obvious. None of this comes free. Malta's debt continues to rise, public expenditure keeps expanding, and many of these proposals carry enormous recurring costs.
It is telling that the loudest warnings have come from employer bodies increasingly alarmed by the direction of the campaign.
The Malta Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry issued one of the clearest rebukes seen in recent years, directly warning both Robert Abela and Alex Borg against "short-term" and "reckless" populism. Economic policy cannot be dictated by electoral cycles. Businesses plan years ahead. Governments should too.
The Malta Chamber of SMEs has voiced similar concerns, particularly about the absence of consultation on proposals that could heavily affect employers and small businesses. Many of these ideas may sound attractive politically, but micro and small enterprises do not have the same flexibility or financial buffers as the public sector. Measures such as compressed working weeks or expanded remote-working obligations are not universally workable, especially in sectors already struggling with labour shortages and rising costs.
The Malta Employers Association has also warned against the dangerous logic of parties "out-bidding" each other. Someone ultimately pays for these promises. Businesses face higher costs, taxpayers carry greater burdens, and the economy risks becoming increasingly dependent on State intervention rather than productivity and competitiveness.
What is perhaps most striking in all this is the silence from the unions.
At a time when employer organisations are openly cautioning against excess and warning about sustainability, unions have remained quiet. That silence speaks volumes. They are evidently content with the direction of the campaign because many of the measures directly benefit workers in the short term. Yet responsible social dialogue should involve more than applauding benefits without questioning affordability or long-term impact.
There is also a deeper issue at play. Malta's politics is becoming dangerously transactional. Elections are increasingly reduced to a calculation of who offers more rather than who governs better. Serious discussions about infrastructure, planning, institutional reform, environmental degradation, overdevelopment, education quality or healthcare sustainability are overshadowed by announcements designed to dominate a news cycle.
This is not healthy democracy. It encourages short-term thinking among politicians and voters alike. It conditions the electorate to expect constant financial rewards from the government while pushing difficult but necessary reforms further down the road.
The irony is that many of the problems now being addressed through subsidies and benefits were themselves fuelled by years of poor planning. Housing has become unaffordable partly because of policies that aggressively drove population growth and construction. Cost-of-living pressures are tied to wider structural weaknesses that cannot be solved indefinitely through bonuses and handouts.
Yet instead of confronting those realities honestly, parties continue wrapping promises like Christmas presents and hoping voters focus on what is inside the box rather than on the bill that will eventually arrive.
Malta deserves an election campaign built on credibility, discipline and long-term vision. What it is currently getting is Christmas in May - and the country may end up paying for it long after the decorations come down.