Stuck in the mud?

Accusations of corruption ran rife and libel cases were filed by the dozen as the two main parties' spent the last week of the campaign unearthing candidates' alleged misdemeanours.

So was the 2008 election campaign characterised by sleaze? And was the electorate any the wiser about policies as it cast its vote yesterday?

Anthropologist and The Sunday Times columnist Mark Anthony Falzon doubts whether the accusations have been effective in convincing people to 'cross over', though they may have damaged individual reputations.

"When two chimney-sweeps wrestle, it's hard to decide who emerges cleaner. I also think that when a party is accused of sleaze, it should just counter the accusation without resorting to the moral high ground of mud-slinging victimhood. After all, it's a right and possibly a duty of politicians to expose sleaze."

Nationalist backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Labour deputy leader Charles Mangion were among the party officials accused of corruption in the last week.

Nevertheless, Dr Falzon says he found the campaign reassuringly sparing of insults - at least on an 'official' party level. 'Mud-slinging', he says, is a subjective term that is always outward bound.

"It's a bit like gossip really - other people gossip; I discuss people because I wish them well. Or driving - other people drive carelessly; I add a dash of common sense to the rules. By analogy, the other party smears, we provide information."

Dr Falzon said he was struck by the centralisation that had become a feature of Maltese politics. This campaign was very much the show of the party secretaries. The billboards represent centralised decisions taken in party headquarters, meaning that the party secretaries have a monopoly on images.

"Add to that the party television and radio stations, the official flags and T-shirts, the official songs and slogans, and one begins to see what I'm getting at," he said.

The Times' columnist Kenneth Zammit Tabona described the five-week campaign as nail-biting and nerve-racking, amid much mudslinging.

There was an extraordinary contrast between the campaign steered by the two main parties, according to Mr Zammit Tabona. The Nationalist Party clearly took a leaf out of the US/French-style of campaigning and throughout all the major events, leader Lawrence Gonzi was at the forefront along with his wife Kate, while the Cabinet took a back seat.

It is a party which is long past its sell-by date, but is doing a good job renewing itself, he says.

On the other hand, the Labour Party was fronted by a man who has been at the helm for 16 years, and who is, unfortunately, suffering health-wise, Mr Zammit Tabona adds.

"Despite being surrounded by some new people, it is a Labour Party which hasn't changed. Labour's campaign was also lacklustre compared to the PN's."

In general, the mud-slinging was worse than previous years, though Labour's campaign was reminiscent of the one in 1996, when similar dosages of corruption claims were administered.

The most innovative aspect of the election campaign, Mr Zammit Tabona said, was the way all parties made use of Internet campaigning and news.

Most candidates set up their own websites, while supporters posted clips on Youtube, to drum up support for their party or, more likely, poke fun at their adversaries. Voters were constantly logged on to websites like www.timesofmalta.com.

Political commentator J.G. Vassallo said the two main parties were seemingly more interested in pointing out each other's defects during the five-week campaign rather than discussing what was good and bad for the country.

"The campaign ended up being sensationalised in the end though I am quite sure that some of the things exposed towards the end shocked the electorate," he says.

It was important, however, Mr Vassallo noted, that the electorate distinguished between mere claims and truth, adding that some details which were divulged towards the end of the campaign would have had some sort of impact on the result.

In line with Malta's Christian credentials, at the start of the election campaign the bishops had called for "more reciprocal respect and love in discourses and judgments".

In a pastoral letter for lent, Archbishop Paul Cremona and Gozo Bishop Mario Grech had said: "Diversity is an important element in a democracy. But political maturity demands that the discussion is more concentrated on arguments and points of view than about persons."

When asked whether he believed the political parties had lived up to the Church's wishes shortly after casting his vote in Sliema, Archbishop Paul Cremona would only say: "I am praying for the next five years."