It was to be expected that the debate on how the Labour Party plans to tackle the energy issue and, more specifically, reduce utility tariffs would dominate the beginning of a long electoral campaign.

For almost two weeks now, the bulk of political activities held by the two parties had Labour, on one side, trumpeting its proposals – which it insists are doable – and the Nationalist Party doing its utmost to demolish them, saying they will drive the economy into a brick wall and, to boot, raise rather than cut the cost of electricity.

Crucial as the cost of generating power may be to the social and economic well-being of the country, there are other matters that the public expects to be addressed and discussed during this campaign.

What do the political parties think about such things and how do they plan to go about them? Voters need to know if they are to make an informed choice on March 9.

There are a number of issues that have remained on the backburner for too long now and which many would consider to be essential components in a thriving democracy.

The electoral system itself cries out for attention. Apart from such practical aspects as one’s ability to vote overseas or by mail and the problems facing those electors who spend a long time overseas, losing their right to vote, the possibility remains – albeit slim – that the perverse electoral result of 1981 can repeated.

Then, the PN won the majority of votes but a minority of seats in Parliament. Yet, Labour still had the right to govern because it enjoyed a majority in the House.

The Constitution was eventually amended, giving the right to a party winning an absolute majority of first count votes to form a government. That was again modified to extend such right to govern to that party that would win even a simple majority, with the proviso that this would only apply if two political parties are represented in Parliament.

What this means is that if a third force somehow manages to elect even one candidate – however difficult that might be – this country could end up in crisis again.

There are also question marks over whether the current clause is adequate, since it provides for a majority of one seat with all the (recent) problems that can bring with it.

Should the President be allocated more powers? Is it time to have technocrats sitting on Cabinet and should a Prime Minister be allowed to remain in office for more than, say, two terms?

These are matters that one would also expect to be addressed. Beyond the nuts and bolts of daily life, voters need to know what kind of politics the parties are proposing.

When discussing the much-vaunted transparency and accountability, the Whistleblower Act, the functions of the Auditor General, the culture of resignations and the responsibility of office cannot be ignored.

This leads us to the sorry situation prevailing within the justice system. That ranges from the manner in which members of the judiciary are appointed, their behaviour, even in their private life, and how to deal with bad elements. The structure and functions of the Commission for the Administration of Justice are crucial to this.

These are delicate matters that must be well studied before any decisions are taken. But addressed they must be and this is the time for the political parties to commit themselves in detail and with clear time frames.