Editorial

The last three elections and the referendum on EU membership have shown a most welcome change in Maltese politics. More people than ever before are voting for what they believe is right rather than for what their party political allegiance, usually inherited from one family to another, dictated - psychologically or otherwise. It is a change which if retained - and there is no reason why it shouldn't - should gradually change the face of Maltese politics.

As all political parties do, both the Nationalists and Labour play to the sentiments of their followers but it is clear from the voting swings shown in the last three elections that neither can exclusively rely on traditional party support, even though it goes without saying that there is still a hardline segment in both parties that would not change their minds whatever the causes fought for at elections.

This change in attitude, born out of greater political maturity, is placing the parties, and the politicians, under scrutiny all the time. Playing to the gallery in discussions or even in parliamentary debates, and attitudes and moves prompted by an obvious desire to gain publicity, rather than to make a valid contribution to a cause, may well please hardline supporters but are unlikely to amuse those who are more politically discerning.

The political parties themselves and their media would have to think long and hard about this as the number of those who are moving over to the politically discerning segment of the population is growing and has become a determining factor in elections. One item in a recent Nationalist Party's television channel programme can be given as a good example of how a party can irritate the "thinking" segment of their own supporters.

In a bid to discredit those who had harshly criticised the government throughout the summer for inaction, or poor performance, the programme presenter chose to interview a number of ministers about this. Basically the ministers were asked whether they agreed with the view that the government had been in hibernation?

The ministers' replies were, of course, obvious. As a result the programme put the channel's own party in a bad light, implying that the people are incapable of making a judgment.

When the people's mood in summer was one of discontent, brought about by a string of well-justified complaints, the least the programme could have done was to find out, through a credible survey, what the people thought about the government's performance, rather than just interviewing the ministers themselves! What did they expect the ministers to say? Treating a controversy of this nature in this manner may please the party hardliners but it falls far below the general expectations of those who use their own minds in making value judgments.

One or two ministers felt confident enough of their own performance to bounce the accusation of hibernation on to the journalists who made it! And now the prime minister too makes similar remarks about the media!

It now looks as if the government has decided to take its work schedule with greater vigour than that shown so far so as to start coming to grips with the problems facing the country. The proof of the pudding is, however, in the eating.