Editorial

When the country goes to the polls on Saturday after a campaign that started off on a low key but ended with the two main parties hurling corruption claims at each other, the electorate will have a clear choice to make: Keeping a party in government that has steered the island towards steady economic and social progress or taking a risk and elect to government a party with half-baked ideas and a wobbly sense of direction. Having been out of power for so long, except for the two-year blip between 1996 and 1998, the risk is not small, particularly in terms of handling difficult situations, in which Labour had shown distinct evidence of incompetence leading directly to its downfall and fresh elections.

Up to only a few months ago, few would have given the Nationalist Party a strong chance of winning. Their major drawback, at least as seen by many, was that they have been in power for far too long and that it was time for the country to have a change. Many believed the Administration was creaking at the seams and that a number of people at the top of the Administration, including a number of ministers, were tired and should have faded out of the political scene, or at least retreat from the front benches.

Over and above all this, it was held that the Nationalists were making too many mistakes.

Much of all this is true but, set against this background, are incontrovertible facts that would put, or ought to put, the Nationalists ahead of the Labour Party in a contest for power. The Nationalists may have made mistakes, and a reshuffle at the right time would have probably given Lawrence Gonzi's team that added verve that the people had been looking for, but there is no denying either that, when all is said and done, the country has made good progress, as it can well be proved by facts and figures. The country is gradually settling in as a new member of the European Union, with membership of the eurozone as from January 1 this year being the ultimate proof that the country has been able to put the government's finances in shape.

Clear sense of direction

In the last two general elections, the electorate had no difficulty whom to choose. Following the amateurish way in which the MLP handled its internal crisis over a waterfront project in Cottonera, when it lost its majority support in Parliament, no electorate was going to trust Labour back in power in 1998. The choice in 2003 could also hardly have been clearer. Between membership of the EU and a loose arrangement that Labour had in mind, a partnership of some kind, the electorate twice opted for membership - first in the referendum and in the subsequent general election.

Labour had dismally failed to read the signs of the times for Malta and the electorate was smart enough to stand firm and showed the MLP where the country's future lay. With Malta now firmly in the EU, and with all the fears that Labour had generated over membership having fizzled out, the issue today is over which of the two parties is best suited to take Malta into what may well be described as the post-membership consolidation stage. This is a fundamentally important issue as it presupposes a party in government that truly shares the people's belief in the EU. The MLP may have changed its policy over membership but can it be fully trusted with safeguarding the island's place in the EU? The party's "body language" does not inspire much confidence over this.

As in past elections, there has been an avalanche of promises. Some are worth considering but others have simply been made to win votes. It is not difficult to see which of the two main proposals made in this campaign makes most sense: Labour's to halve the surcharge on water and electricity use and the Nationalists' to cut income tax. Labour's pledge is politically irresponsible and socially unjust, because about 30,000 families are already exempted from the payment of the surcharge. Besides, what would Labour do if the price continues to shoot up? On the other hand, the PN's income tax pledge is far more attractive. It is in effect a continuation of a policy that has been seen to promote further growth.

Taking an overall view of the situation, the economic and social progress made in the country is tangible, with the deficit in the government's finances below the Maastricht criteria and other indicators, such as the rate of growth in gross domestic product, showing encouraging improvement.

Is the electorate prepared to swap this Administration for a party that is showering promises like confetti in a festa afternoon march?

With their mistakes and all, the Nationalists have shown a clear sense of direction all the time and a record of development that has seen a steady improvement in the people's living standard and in the quality of life. The man at the helm, given top marks for trust and credibility, inspires the confidence needed for the country to keep moving forward. Is the electorate prepared to risk all this for an administration by a party whose many of its election promises have been shown to have inbuilt deficiencies and whose sense of direction is like a weathercock?