If I recall correctly the question of honesty and trust did not feature too highly in people’s minds prior to this never-ending electoral campaign. This notwithstanding, both parties endeavoured to embark on legitimate and less legitimate initiatives that could earn them a halo and, hence, a ticket to power.

...All that glitters is not gold- Charles Schembri

Of late, the electorate’s trust in the parties and their key players’ honesty has definitely taken centre stage; given that both parties are almost proposing similar policies, albeit cosmetically dressed to strike a number of important and less important variants.

No big ideological issues are at play. In this respect, the country has matured and the electorate has become more discerning, delving deeply in what is said and interpreting the actors’ behaviour. This boils down to a matter of perception.

The Nationalist Party stresses continuity when speaking about trust and legitimacy and promises to continue fine-tuning the social and economic fabric of the country. Backed by its ‘successes’, also acknowledged by the Labour Party, it rightly so proposes transiting from the implementation of ‘hard measures’ to ‘soft measures’. Indeed, a good chunk of its 120 plus proposals are soft measures that focus on the citizen’s enhanced well being and empowerment.

However, an almost uninterrupted stint in power of circa 25 years carries its weight. The PN’s eventful administration has not been without fault, including ill-conceived, albeit well intended, action. In the main, this was a scenario fabricated consciously by itself and not thrust upon it.

The root of all this ‘evil’ could be summed up in its determination to politicise the public service, opting for political appointees who little distinguish between delivering a service to the people and propagating the Executive’s policy with a view to effectively practise the democratic process. It was the implementation of a delicate balance that barely passed the test.

Notwithstanding acts of commission and omission, alleged mismanagement and unaudited allegations of corruption, ill-perceived prioritisations and the magma of internal factions, the PN cannot, except for PR purposes and to win sympathy, be accused of being dishonest. One cannot be dishonest just because when, fearing being shipwrecked, one sails the ship onto a creek while retaining all hands on board.

On the other hand, the electorate needs to come to terms with a rejuvenated and well-organised (and, it is said, financed) PL, whose only determining strength could in fact be the long years it has spent in opposition.

The PL, the party-in-government in the making, cannot be labelled for its failures in governance and government policy development. It cannot be referred to as the agent that tarnished the country’s social and economic progress. Unfortunately, for long years it has lived in deep hibernation in the opposition, even if the last time round it lost power by default.

This idiosyncrasy is well known to the PL and it is along this sort of reasoning that it has been developing its campaign over the last four years. It does not take much to realise that these long years in opposition has made the PL determined to achieve success and to revolutionalise the country’s institutional, social and economic structure and recover lost ground. It calls for a change in direction but what it is really proposing is a change in the style of government.

Under its new leader, the PL has sought to project itself as an agent for change that cannot be accused of anything impure. It has so far succeeded to win the honesty contest among those nearing middle age and among the young, as a recent survey in the press showed.

Unfortunately, in its image projection, the PL is treading on marshland. An assessment of its road map and its paternalistic know-it-all image highlights its conspicuous but well-meaning uncertain avenues. It could end up being caught up like a ham in a sandwich.

On the one hand, it contends to be without fault, well meaning and open to all creeds.

On the other hand, even in opposition, it could be sensed that it is liable to committing the same mistakes of the PN.

In conclusion, it is always difficult striking a balance between what is honest and dishonest, incidental recurring mistakes and ill-conceived action, culpability due to lack of careful monitoring of government actions and the claim of rectitude because, for long years, one was just a free spirit watching a dog fight while sitting on the fence.

All that glitters is not gold, said the bard of Avon.