For all the talk of democracy, fairness and equal opportunity in election campaigns, one truth remains stubbornly unchanged: governments enter elections with advantages that opposition parties can never match. The power of incumbency is real, and in Malta it is being exercised to the fullest extent.
This is not unique to one administration. Governments of different political colours have done it before. But the current Labour administration has refined the practice into a political science of timing, visibility and State-backed generosity.
In the last days alone, the country has seen money distributed to band clubs, collective agreements signed with workers, restoration projects announced, roads suddenly prioritised, and first-time buyers receiving €1,000 cheques ahead of schedule. Every announcement is wrapped in the language of national progress, but the political timing is impossible to ignore. These measures are not being unveiled in some neutral administrative vacuum. They are being rolled out in the heat of an election campaign.
The argument made by governments is always the same: the country cannot stop functioning simply because an election has been called. That is true to a point. Essential administration must continue. Salaries must be paid, services maintained and urgent decisions taken.
But there is a significant difference between routine administration and politically advantageous decision-making.
Once an election is called, a government should effectively become a caretaker administration. It should govern cautiously, avoid major commitments and refrain from using public resources in ways that could influence voters. Instead, what often happens in Malta is the exact opposite. The weeks before an election become a frenzy of announcements, agreements, inaugurations and financial distribution.
The line between governing and campaigning disappears.
This creates an uneven playing field. Opposition parties must rely on press conferences, interviews and manifesto pledges. Governments, meanwhile, can deploy the machinery of the state itself. Ministers appear at official events that conveniently double as campaign opportunities. Public funds finance initiatives that generate goodwill precisely when votes are about to be cast.
The imbalance is obvious.
It is also difficult to measure fully because much of it happens beyond public scrutiny. What is visible is only part of the picture. There are always suspicions that permits accelerate, public sector jobs multiply or discretionary decisions become more generous in election periods. Even the perception of such practices damages trust in democratic institutions.
The deeper problem is that the system almost invites abuse.
There are few meaningful restrictions on what a government may do once Parliament is dissolved. Malta lacks strong conventions regulating caretaker administrations. As a result, governing parties continue exercising executive power with minimal restraint while simultaneously asking the electorate for another mandate.
This should at least trigger a national discussion on reform.
Perhaps major public funding announcements should be suspended during campaigns. Perhaps governments should be prohibited from signing long-term agreements once an election is called. Perhaps appointments, direct orders and discretionary spending should face tighter scrutiny during this period.
Other democracies impose stricter caretaker conventions precisely to prevent the abuse – or perceived abuse – of incumbency. Malta should consider doing the same.
Of course, no government willingly gives up political advantage. The power of incumbency is one of the strongest weapons available in any election campaign. Those in office benefit from visibility, authority and access to public resources. Expecting parties to voluntarily limit themselves may be unrealistic.
That is precisely why rules matter.
Democracy is not only about allowing people to vote. It is also about ensuring that elections are contested fairly. When State power becomes intertwined with partisan campaigning, confidence in that fairness begins to erode.
Malta has normalised this behaviour for too long. Each administration pushes the limits a little further than the last, until the extraordinary becomes routine.
The country deserves better safeguards than that.
