Any election, local, national or European, is democracy at work. Elections are the direct expression of a people’s choice, a verdict expressed in the most absolute of ways and is the last word on anything. The suggestion by the Prime Minister that next year’s local elections could be postponed, by five years, so they may be combined with European elections is not to be taken lightly.

Joseph Muscat gave two reasons for his suggestion: election fatigue and costs. Both arguments are worthy of discussion.

The reason why voters may be experiencing election fatigue is understandable. This country has effectively undergone two ‘national’ elections within the span of a year. The March 2013 election came as due but last month’s European elections were something entirely different and, yet, it felt like another national election. The Prime Minister is partly to blame for this.

Although he initially labelled his party as the underdog, his confidence as the campaign unfolded grew to the point that he turned it into a personal challenge between himself and Opposition leader Simon Busuttil. The latter may have denied such a contest but that was still how the election result was interpreted.

What should have been the election of six MEPs was turned into a vote of confidence in the government.

Both parties went into top gear, campaigning earnestly and to the best of their abilities and resources. Labour billboards, many of them illegal, sprouted up all over the island. None of the propaganda dished out had anything to with the European Parliament. They were all local issues. It was a repeat of the general election which came to the same result. No wonder there is election fatigue. However, that doesn’t mean that local council elections should be postponed.

Local elections, as the name itself implies, are local and should be kept that way. The issues debated should be local, the focus kept local and political parties should keep their campaigns local and vie to offer the best policies to localities. That is the beauty of democracy: a choice of policies to an electorate that is sovereign. Yes, political parties may use local elections to gauge their popularity, and they always do, but that is not the purpose of local elections.

If people are feeling election fatigue, it is because of the style of the political campaigning rather than the elections themselves. It may take political maturity, and less partisanship, but political parties can tacitly agree that local elections are simply kept just that, local. That would cut costs, the excessive and intensive campaigning and, yes, avoid election fatigue.

Nothing undermines a country’s democracy than a passive voter and our political parties have a great responsibility to ensure this does not happen.

The second issue raised by the Prime Minister is cost. There is no price for democracy but costs could be kept down, again with some political maturity.

The tedious, overdrawn counting system at the last European elections, complete with the banging on the Perspex windows by frustrated party agents at the counting hall, calls for a serious reconsideration of how we handle our election voting and counting. There are surely easier methods, electronic systems that can speed up the process and cut down on costs. Local council elections offer an opportunity to try out new methods.

Postponing next year’s and 2017’s local elections is not the solution to election fatigue or costs. Political maturity and responsibly on the part of political parties, that keep the elections in a realistic perspective, would be the solution.