As the European Parliament elections gradually recede into the collective memory, the Nationalist Party (PN) will remain painfully aware of that crushing defeat right up to the next general election. It is argued that voting behaviour in the former does not necessarily mirror how ballots will be cast in the latter. But such was the narrowness of its victory at the last general election that the PN knows full well that even if only a small number of voters go to the polls motivated by the same level of disgruntlement they felt in the MEP elections the party has no hope of hanging on.

While four years may be a very long time in politics, it also allows plenty of time for political blunders. One can be reasonably sure there is more to come after recent debacles such as the atrociously handled utility rate hikes and the Mistra and Baħrija controversies. This will only make it increasingly difficult for the PN to be confident of the loyalty of its ever-growing section of disillusioned supporters. For the disappointed and doubting to stay in the fold, Lawrence Gonzi must be seen to deliver, and deliver big, on projects like Mepa reform, City Gate and SmartCity, while the economic recovery will also have to be well underway.

Quite a tall order and, even with his comeback talents, Dr Gonzi may not be able to pull it off. This raises the significant risk that the PN will resort extensively - the opposition would say once again - to that tried and tested method of securing votes: clientelism. There have been calls for the PN to be more sympathetic to the ordinary citizen, to lend a more willing ear to individual complaints and to generally be more "sensitive" to the people. Now, while this may be interpreted on the level of policy-making and of setting injustices right for constituents, which is all very well, the fine line is easily crossed into doling out favours in return for votes or financial support.

To one degree or another, the practice is an inescapable fact of politics wherever in the world elections take place.

The more checks and balances, and the more independent the country's institutions, the less likely it is for politicians to have recourse to it. By its very nature - being conducted in the shadows - it is always very difficult to gauge its extent.

What is sure is that it damages a country on many levels. It leads to inefficiency and waste as jobs, posts and contracts go to those less qualified to carry them out. It distorts decision making, diverting it away from the fulfilment of the common good to the benefit of individual supporters. It creates little gods for whom the words transparency and accountability are confined to political rhetoric. It promotes inequity, as society becomes divided into those who have access to channels of power and those who do not. It fosters corruption and undermines the rule of law. And, ultimately, a government elected on the strength of personal favours is a weak one at best.

Whether it is helping someone to get a job, jump a waiting list, avoid a tax, obtain a permit, be favoured for some form of infrastructure or win a government contract, clientelism must not be allowed to take deeper root. It rests with the Prime Minister to make sure it does not, unless he wants the term "power of incumbency" to come back to haunt him should he be re-elected.