I came across one of those American online polls the other day which tackled marital infidelity vis-a-vis the current US presidential candidacies. Katie Couric asked 10 leading presidential contenders what their take was on the whole business of marital and extra-marital affairs in relation to the US presidency. Should one have any bearing on the other? Would voters be justified in feeling uncomfortable supporting a man who had not been honourable in his marriage? And if you were not able to keep a promise to your spouse, how could you possibly keep a promise to the parking attendant... and more importantly to your country?

The answers were interesting and various, but most agreed that public morality and private morality are separate and distinct and should not be treated as equivalent. Barack Obama made the astute observation that some of America's greatest presidents were not always the most terrific husbands, and inversely some of the more dedicated and wonderful husbands turned out to be rotten presidents. Mention was made of Franklin Delano Roosevelt - one of the greatest US presidents, the only one to serve more than two terms in office, and a vital central figure of the 20th century, at a time when America desperately needed a courageous and resilient president more than it did a president who was faithful and monogamous. Hillary's answer was rather telling and significant. She referred to it as a 'deeply personal matter'. The underlying message she put across was that America had often been led and represented by people who managed to accomplish greatness notwithstanding the challenges they may have faced in their personal lives.

It was fun to read and, as often happens, while I was secretly pondering what Alfred, Emmy, Harry, Josie, Lawrence (alphabetical) and all the rest would answer, if confronted with a similar series of questions, I happened to catch a glimpse of Lawrence Gonzi on the February issue of the Circle, alongside the caption 'Will women vote for this man?'. It was quite surreal because seeing Gonzi on the front page, immediately made me think of that corny movie What Women Want, the one with the sickening performance by Mel Gibson - sickening in that very 'Can-anyone-out-there-resist-my-charm' sort of way'? And somehow seeing Gonzi in close proximity to the word 'women' must have triggered something in my head and left me thinking the weirdest and most unlikely tableaus. It's funny how the mind works... association of ideas and all of that.

I turned to page 12 of the magazine hoping I'd find the Maltese equivalent of the poll carried out by Couric. Or if not, some real, tell-it-like-it-is, honest to goodness stuff... women talking about their favourite Maltese male candidates with all the juicy graphic details. But it was not to be.

The closest it got to up close and personal was a very passing sketch of just two of the contenders. Gonzi was portrayed as the traditional, solid, dependable wedding-ring-on-finger type of guy, married to girl-next-door Kate - one of those women who instantly makes any man feel safe; the kind of woman you just want to go home to.

Sant, was not depicted, in the same picture perfect way. Mind you, I do hear he is quite popular with lots of the ladies. And is one of those hands-on, fantastic fathers. The type of guy who'd personally go and pick his daughter up after school in lieu of sending his chauffeur or have her catch the school bus. And trust me, I know because I lived right across the school for many years.

But that is Sant to a tee I suppose. He's probably best described as the rather aloof and very cool customer who likes to do things his way and doesn't really feel he owes the rest of the world an explanation for the decisions and choices he makes. He's a little bit like the Maths professor who knows the answers to all the questions but has trouble explaining the workings to the rest of the classroom. So you're left wondering just how he got there while he's already moved on to the next chapter.

The article in the Circle provoked a number of different reactions within me, not least how very little we know about the lives of the people who are ultimately allowed to shape our own. The tendency here in Malta is such that the private lives of those in the public eye remain strictly private. Unless it's some Xarabank Christmas special. Then we get to see all the nauseating snapshots and milestones.

But we don't ever get to hear about the separations, scandals, break-ups, affairs, infidelities - the likes of which we get to see in all the unforgiving tabloids in the UK and the rest of western Europe. Nobody goes there. Or at least not yet. In this regard, it is instructive to recall, that in the UK, newly elected Members of Parliament are strongly advised as part of their initiation procedure, that if they were to have an affair, it should be with a partner who has more to lose than they do, if it ever became public.

It's a curious omission and one that seems peculiar to Malta. Although there have been slight departures, of course. We did have our own sex, lies and video tape Bill and Monica story at the turn of the millennium, incidentally prompted by a foreigner. But compared with the rest of the world, we're still very reticent in this regard. The fact that we have held out for so long is definitely an interesting phenomenon.

While the paparazzi capture clandestine affairs onboard luxury yachts in the South of France and give us all the gory tampon details, and while we're still being subjected to grainy CCTV footage of Dodi and Diana in the Ritz Hotel lift, here in Malta we never get that close to home. While it's OK to pick on fag ends, to tear someone's wig to shreds, to discuss certain idiosyncrasies, it's not OK to really hit hard with the skinny on private lives. I wonder if it will always stay this way or whether, one day, this will eventually reach our shores too. Just like traffic lights did in 1997. Because sooner or later, everything does get here I suppose.

michelaspiteri@gmail.com