The local council elections are over and, as predicted, the turnout has dropped again. Of course, fewer people will abstain from voting in the general election, but I am convinced that, at the moment, a good number of people intend staying at home even in the general election.

It is quite interesting to note that when it comes to voting intentions the mood in Malta is very similar to the one in Italy at the moment. In both countries I meet a substantial number of people who, disillusioned with the present state of politics, declare openly "I will not vote".

Now I can understand perfectly the disillusionment of voters when they see that, once in government, many pre-electoral promises are not kept. And the voters' reaction therefore becomes quite a natural one. However, have those who do not intend to vote pondered on the effect of their decision?

When my Italian friends say that they are so disappointed with the Prodi government because after nine months it has not lived up to their expectations, I can sympathise with them. But when they retort by stating "I will not vote", my answer is quite simple: "It is quite true that certain decisions taken would not be your ideal choice, but by not voting for the Prodi coalition, what would the result be? Simply, another Berlusconi government, by default! And do you think that your ideals would be better off with Berlusconi in power, rather than Prodi?"

By dumping the Prodi government they are disappointed with, would the idealistic Italian pacifists who would like to see unarmed Italian personnel in Afghanistan, reach their aims? Certainly not: Berlusconi would definitely increase the amount of armed military and just follow blindly George W. Bush's diktat.

And would the people of Vicenza, extremely angry (and rightly so) at the proposed doubling of the American base on the outskirts of their UNESCO-designated World Heritage city be better off under a Berlusconi government? Certainly not - the Vicenza base would be built even more rapidly!

And by not voting at all, and thus getting Berlusconi by default, would the environmentalists benefit? The clear answer is no. This would spell the end of investment in solar energy and other renewable energy in Italy and the beginning of a huge investment in white elephants and other gigantic projects to satisfy the whims and greed of the usual few known contractors.

The same line of thought applies to Malta. I ask those Maltese voters who declare that they will not vote: "Do you think that by not voting, life in Malta will get better?" My strong belief is "definitely not!"

By not voting, we will simply get an Alfred Sant government, by default. And, with a Sant government, will hunting in spring be outlawed forever? Certainly not. The PN are doing their utmost to maintain hunting in spring, with Simon Busuttil, Lawrence Gonzi and George Pullicino insulting us all by stating that by voting yes to EU membership we had voted for hunting!

But have you seen the amendments presented by the Labour MEPs to the resolution on hunting in Malta, all bent on trying to conserve hunting in spring? Amazing: the Labour MPs are vying with Simon Busuttil on who defends spring hunting most! So, a Labour government will just accept the status quo and continue allowing hunters to hunt in spring.

And would those who are asking for divorce to be introduced in Malta have their wishes come true with a Sant-led one-party government? Of course not: the PN, led by Dr Gonzi, has already stressed that there is no place for divorce in Malta; but then even the Labour leader has already declared that Maltese society has not asked for divorce to be put on the political agenda.

And, with Dr Sant in government, would the rape of our country at the hands of well-known speculators end? Certainly not! The only difference would be that the Caqnus of today that have thrived under the Nationalists might be replaced by the MLP Dubai business buddies, while the famous businessman who has had his finger in many commercial pies since the good all Mintoff days... will continue regaling us with his obscene high-rise buildings for the next 20 years, at least. Basically, the PN has extended development zones... just continuing on where the MLP had left off in the Eighties.

And what about transparency in political party financing? Would things change in future with a one-party government? The answer is again "no". Both Dr Sant and Dr Gonzi are against proper financial regulations that would allow for the disclosure of who funds the parties.

My opinion is, of course, not an unbiased one. But, after 43 years of one-party governments in independent Malta, I can assure you that the only way to bring about some change in Maltese governance is by voting into parliament the third party.

A coalition government would spell the end of the prevailing "winner takes all" mentality in Maltese politics. It would force the major party in the coalition to start adopting a "give and take" attitude in matters of national importance. This would mean that all the people and human resources who have been neglected for so many years because of the "winner takes all" mentality will start playing a meaningful role in Maltese society. And our country could only stand to benefit from all this.

This scenario can really come true if all those voters who have declared that they will not vote at the next elections will, in fact, vote strongly for the third party in the Maltese parliament. Are you ready to bring about this change in Malta?

Arnold Cassola, a Maltese Green MP in the Italian parliament, was elected in the European constituency in Prime Minister Romano Prodi's list in the April 2006 general election.

arnoldcassola@gmail.com