The power of incumbency always comes to the fore whenever a general election is approaching. Incumbents abusing power in the context of elections is a long-standing problem, one where little has changed in recent years.

The coming general election is no exception, and we are already experiencing the government's exploitation of its power of incumbency.

With the electoral campaign under way by all party and candidate contestants, it is a time when the constitutional, legal, regulatory, and institutional mechanisms needed to ensure that an election is in reality a competition among political parties and/or individual candidates, with the state holding the ring rather than a competition between the state, on behalf of the ruling party, and the opposition, appear weakest at their point.

Little progress, for example, has been made in tackling the state bias of publicly owned media. Holding a government office implies control over the bureaucracy and the legislative process and easy access to media attention. Thus, there are good reasons why incumbency could be the source of an electoral advantage.

Labourite incumbent politicians arguably have access to discretionary resources with which to buy votes.

These abuses, the undue advantages obtained by the ruling Labour Party and its officials through the use of their official positions or connections to governmental institutions, have all the potential to influence the outcome of the fast-approaching general election, compromise its integrity, and reduce public trust in the legitimacy of the process and its outcomes.

Abuses of state resources for the purpose of influencing the electoral process can drain limited funds available for development, infrastructure, or social welfare projects; conversely, these projects may be launched around the campaign period to influence voters rather than being initiated when they are needed.

The long-term harmful effects of the abuse of state resources on the rule of law are palpable when politically loyal institutions and public employees go above the law, either intentionally or under duress, to act in the interest of a ruling party rather than the country.

Such unfair gaps risk leaving our electoral system vulnerable to manipulation by those in positions of power.

A clear distinction between the operation of government, the activities of the civil service and the conduct of the electoral campaign must be observed and safeguarded.

It is, therefore, imperative to strengthen the capacity of civil society to monitor abuses in an effort to hold political actors accountable.                                                        

                                                  Utterly irresponsible

Both Prime Minister Robert Abela and Opposition Leader Alex Borg are fiercely competing with each other by who offers most and best.

It is only natural to ask what's behind this approach, as never like this electoral campaign have so many wild promises been dished out.

One fundamental reason is obvious: the PN and Labour Party have become ideologically indistinct. When ideological competition is absent, parties are more likely to compete with one another in terms of how much they are offering. While there are many downsides to party polarisation, party convergence is also problematic because it makes bidding wars more likely.

The parties' electoral prospects at the beginning of a campaign shape the level of spending commitments in their manifestos. Specifically, the party in a weak electoral position with little prospect of leading a government tends to promise more than the party that is ahead in the polls. One consequence of this is that when a party attains power, it finds itself shackled with fiscally irresponsible election promises that it never thought it would have to implement.

Unchecked, parties may promise more than is prudent given the available resources, in pursuit of short-term electoral gains. Yet the prospect of punishment in future elections does appear to serve as an important disincentive for parties to over-promise. However, this only applies to the party that expects to be in government.

A degree of ideological competition can also prevent an election from descending into an auction. This is because voters will be reluctant to vote for a party to which they are opposed on ideological grounds, regardless of how much that party is offering. Beyond this, it is important for the media and independent agencies to scrutinise election manifestos to ensure that parties do not engage in auction politics.

What we are seeing now is that promises of social benefit expansions are especially being used, as they usually tend to have very direct implications for individuals.

Apparently, both the PN and the Labour Party are hoping to successfully misuse the welfare state for purely political purposes, committing themselves to spend financial and non-financial resources on programmes that may not be the most efficient option from a socioeconomic, non-political perspective but that rather pay the highest electoral dividends.

A good example that illustrates some of the dynamics at play is the 1977 Irish general election. The main opposition party in that election was Fianna Fáil. It produced a manifesto that contained commitments for unprecedented increases in public spending alongside significant tax cuts. This forced their main rivals, Fine Gael, to respond by increasing their initially modest spending proposals. Fianna Fáil went on to win the election but then had to try and follow through on their commitments. The result was a giant increase in the national debt, leading to a deep economic recession in Ireland throughout the 1980s.

                                                                    The silly season is now

 Election campaigns frequently produce moments where politicians make statements that are memorable for being bizarre, illogical, or outright absurd.

The current election campaign is not shorn of such statements, as we had both PN and PL leaders making comments obviously intended to persuade or grab headlines but which became significant gaffes.

Alex Borg claimed that air conditioner sales in Malta had stalled, alleging a local importer told him they were only performing repairs, not importing new units. Yet, the Maltese air conditioning market is robust and active. Latest statistics indicate that air conditioning installation revenue is forecast to grow at a compound annual rate of 2.2% over the next five years.

On another occasion, he asserted that the ongoing geopolitical crisis has no impact on Malta because of its neutrality. I had to listen to that segment multiple times to make sure I wasn't hearing things. After about the fifth listen, my jaw dropped over how out of touch his statement was.

On the other side, we had Prime Minister Robert Abela, who, without naming names, told reporters that "the country's biggest contrabandist" had floated the offshore bunkering idea to him, as he had with the PN. Part of me wanted to laugh because of how insane he sounded, but another part of me was worried. His supporters are ride-or-die fans, and they'll believe anything he says.

Not long after, Deputy Prime Minister Ian Borg publicly questioned the story's significance, calling it a "non-story".

We are seeing a lot of answers about either policy decisions and positions or trying to explain away some foible, like the above. A lot of this stuff makes the politicians in question seem ill-informed or disingenuous, or just plain stupid!

Surely, during what's left of this campaign, we will continue to have quite an array of unhinged moments. From ludicrous comments to viral memes about the candidates on social media platforms, it will leave a questionable mark on our legacy. Despite the seriousness of the election, these instances will unfortunately define the current state of our politics.