The passion and fury of Maltese politics diminishes when a member is known to be ill. At such times humaneness comes to the fore. MPs express solidarity with and wish their colleague a speedy recovery. If it is not the case that a kind of hush descends on the political debate, there is a lull in the game's rhetoric. Politicians still talk about politics, but in a much more measured tone than is usual for them. There is a lull in the normal proceedings.

We are at the moment living through such a lull, induced by the illness which has befallen Alfred Sant, the leader of the opposition. His adversaries on the Nationalist side were among the first to come out with expressions of solidarity and wishes for a speedy recovery. Those sentiments are shared by one and all in the country, certainly by this columnist too. And, I venture to say, the good wishes extended are not a mere formality. There is a genuine grave concern that Dr Sant has come up against the totally unexpected, plus a sincere wish to see him recuperate and return to his political work.

That is as it should be. It is a reminder that our political class is not devoid of decency, a possibility not infrequently suggested by its hard stances and over-the-top charges against the other side. Alas, once the illness which causes the lull in the ferociousness of the proceedings is over, the political class resumes its old bad habits. MPs and other activists do not only go at each other hammer and tongs, as is usual in a confrontational affair. They revert to attacks without limit, frequently focusing on the singer, rather than the song; on the political practitioner, rather than on his/her proposals and deeds.

I suggest there is an opportunity for that to change, for politics to become more decent, beyond the periods of unfortunate illness. I suggest that politicians can seek to persuade voters with their beliefs and proposals in broadly the same softer voices heard in the current lull.

There is no question that they should continue to engage in the clash and contrast of ideas. That is what politics is all about. Yet there can be no question, either, that such clash and contrast can be exercised through civil exchanges, rather than the language of the places far worse than the market square.

I suggest that our politicians would serve themselves and us better if they concentrate on putting forward-looking proposals and explaining why they are better than those of their opponents, rather than continuously looking back to paint their opponents a darker personal shade than black.

It is the easiest of things to pitch into an opponent with charges that s/he carries direct or indirect suspicion of corruption, or of incompetence. Negative electioneering does not really require brains. Good plans for the future do.

Such plans can be expressed in positive language. Such expression should be of more interest, and, therefore, potentially more convincing, than endless wrangling, suspicion, name-calling and worse.

May the present lull lead to such a development between now and the general election, whenever it is held. For the good of all.

May the staff of The Times and readers have a serene 2008.