Former prime minister Alfred Sant compares local politics to telenovelas. He does not see much policy differences between the two main parties and so, he says, one way for them to differentiate themselves is through a tribal system. It is a strange point but he may be partially right.

It is ironic that Dr Sant should speak of tribalism. He won the 1996 election because he managed to rebrand the Labour Party making it more palatable and less tribal. Unfortunately, he had some very wrong policies, especially those regarding European Union membership and value added tax. His government collapsed in less than two years. Nevertheless, he fought tribalism and violent elements within his party and made it electable. That is all to his credit.

Now he speaks of becoming increasingly leftist, having approvingly watched his Labour Party veer to the centre to such a point that he thinks the last big ideological debate in the country was the one on EU membership over 13 years ago. He lost that debate and now sits in the European Parliament he fought so hard against.

One reason why there is general policy convergence between the two main parties is actually public rejection of tribalism. The increasing stock of floating voters, more recently topped up by switcher voters, and the burgeoning voter power of lobby groups have diffused ideological confrontation and replaced it by pragmatism. Tribalism is not gone, of course, it just stands in a shadow.

In his interview with The Sunday Times of Malta, Dr Sant steers away from the Panama Papers controversy, insisting he has already made his position clear, that Minister Konrad Mizzi should have resigned. The problem he ignores is that the Panama Papers have overwhelmed this government to the point of immobility and have raised the political temperature in the country. And this is when political tribalism begins to raise its head, again.

The Labour Party’s show of force on May 1 in Valletta was Labour of old. Gone was any talk of a national movement as it was replaced by red-lettered T-shirts wishing God’s blessing upon Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and vowing party allegiance to death.

In contrast, the Nationalist Party held two protests on the very same site, Castille Place, and there was not one Nationalist flag in sight. The events were promoted as national protests, avoiding tribalism.

Dr Sant is right when he draws parallels with the situation in Europe, where extremist parties are filling in the ideological void left by centre parties. That problem generally does not exist in Malta but it could become a problem, particularly in view of increasing public cynicism about politics.

The endless string of political controversies and scandals are badly hurting the party in government but the Nationalists do not emerge unscathed. Labour’s strategy of pulling out scandals from the past, or of involving the PN in the Panama scandal in any possible way blurs public perception to the point that some people see no difference between the two parties.

For Dr Sant, the common policies of the two parties possibly mean that the question voters now face is which style of government they prefer. That is rather an oversimplification, for elections are far more complicated than that.

PN leader Simon Busuttil seems to be working on those lines. The focus of his political platform is good governance, drawing contrasts with the present administration. Policies will come later and it remains to be seen if he will win the people’s trust to make that ‘style’ change.