The idea behind local government is to provide governing institutions which have authority over a subnational division. Attempts at establishing local government in Malta have always had limited success. The establishment of local councils – the most recent attempt – seems to be an exception.

Local councils have successfully seen the devolving of some limited powers to the local level. This was an attempt to apply the principle of subsidiarity.

The debates that preceded the 1993 Local Councils Act focused on the nature of local council elections.

Labour agreed with the establishment of local councils but initially disagreed with the involvement of political parties at local level. During the parliamentary debates, the leader of the Opposition had referred to surveys showing the public was opposed to the involvement of political parties. This view was also supported by the Church.

The Nationalist Party argued in favour of party involvement at local level.

Attachment to a particular locality is less strong and electoral participation may suffer as a result

On balance, and with the benefit of hindsight, the involvement of political parties seems to have been beneficial to the relative success of local councils.

The local elections, like those to elect members of the European Parliament, have traditionally had lower turnouts than national elections.

The major political parties strive to emphasise the importance of these elections through their all-pervasive media presence and through frequent home visits by the candidates. Social media has increased the candidates’ reach.

However, the approach adopted by both the political parties and the voters fits in a model which scholars have identified as the ‘second order election’ model.

Second order elections usually have a lower participation rate because there is less at stake; there are fewer incentives to attract voters. Those who do vote usually opt to use these elections to test the party in government.

This has parallels with the Maltese scenario. Turnout has been gradually declining and reached 59 per cent in the 2012 local elections. Polarisation and partisanship still play a lead role in these elections and Malta still retains a centralised system with considerable powers vested in the hands of the Executive.

There is a growing perception that local councils have limited powers, restricted to the upkeep of health centres, public gardens, and roads. These issues might not place high in the hierarchy of voter’s needs.

Abstention does not only take place due to the lack of interest in these elections; it can signify a form of protest aimed at the country’s major political parties or at the way local councils are being run.

Political parties, however, tend to underestimate this phenomenon.

For those who do exercise their right to vote, the choice is often twofold: some might vote on the basis of local issues while others might use their vote to rate the performance of their government.

These elections, and those for MEPs, are seen as a major test for the party in government. However, there are studies that warn against reading too much into such results because voters also use these elections to overthrow those local councils that do not meet popular expectations.

These elections must also be viewed in the wider national context.

Malta is a city-State with few discernible boundaries between one locality and another and with decreasing ties to one’s native town or village. The attachment to a particular locality has therefore become less strong and electoral participation may suffer as a result.

On the other hand, care must be taken to avoid insular parochialism.

Local councils should be viewed as part of an unwritten covenant between the central government and local entities; addressing local concerns is a way of contributing towards the welfare of the citizen and the common good.

Thus, in a nation-State were the boundaries between the local and the national are often blurred, care must be taken to properly inform the citizen of the role of local councils and the benefits of devolution of certain powers.

The all-pervasive presence of political parties assigns them a role by default. In the choice of candidates, parties must avoid the temptation of selecting individuals on the basis of popularity and instead decide on the basis of merit.

However, the central role assumed by political parties may discourage those who would like to contest the election on an independent ticket. Partisanship is, thus, a double-edged sword; it provides a reason for party supporters to vote but it may also be a discouraging element for more independent-minded candidates.

Saturday’s elections will have one new element. For the first time, those who have reached the age of 16 will be given the opportunity to vote. This has empowered a new section of the population.

Further empowerment must now be extended to the institutions themselves. Only when these institutions are perceived to be efficient and effective instruments of governance will the declining trend of voter participation be reversed. Citizens will then be encouraged to cast their vote and choose the best candidates who will safeguard the collective interest of their locality.

Jean Claude Cachia holds a doctorate in political science from the College of Social Sciences, University of Lincoln and André DeBattista is a member of the Political Studies Association (UK) and fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.