A good initiative

The 'big debate' organised by the Times this week was a good example of a fair political debate with substantial political content, which allowed all the participants to have their say without interruptions. More than anything though, it was certainly a far cry from the circus environment we have come to expect from the 'leader debates' on TVM.

The rapid-fire question-and-answer format was also a good way of exerting pressure on the leaders, and out of which much information was extracted, to the benefit of the electorate.

It is worth pointing out that, despite the debate taking place subject to all the rulings of the Broadcasting Authority, it was far from bland and indeed, kept both the protagonists on their toes, while succeeding to rivet the audience's attention.

The debate was valuable not only in what was said, but more importantly in what was not said about certain issues - which of course betrayed precisely the areas that the parties aren't that confident about tackling. The nebulous answers on Armier are a case in point. It seems incredulous how a Labour government can come to an agreement with persons who have stolen public land. Equally amazing was the Prime Minister's answer on the same - and contentious - issue: that there are legal rights to compensation for persons who have stolen public land.

The truth of the matter is that both parties are unwilling to bite the bullet, and are showing a pathetic weakness which also happens to be in breach of the law. Equally puzzling are their answers regarding spring hunting, with the Labour leader insisting that the matter should be left untouched, and the prime minister not excluding the possibility of a referendum. Both are in fact too conscious of their constituencies and in defiance of the majority view, which clearly is in favour of spring hunting being banned. There appears to be a reluctance also on the part of both parties to face the consequences of not tackling the second-pillar pensions issue. All politicians are short-termists, and allow problems to accumulate - always focusing on the next election rather than the next generation, who will be the ones left to pick up the financial pieces.

It was salutary to notice points of convergence between the two parties on both a coalition with Alternattiva Demokratika as well as on reforms on the fireworks laws. Not surprisingly they also agree on matters which need to be introduced yet owing to electoral exigencies, both are unwilling to do, like categorically stating that the health service will remain free when it's clear to all that this is unsustainable.

The prime minister's affirmation that he will not resign if he loses the next election startled not a few people who would have expected a more diplomatic answer that would allow the party club representatives to decide his political future. Equally startling was Joseph Muscat's refusal to attach any political responsibility in the drug party case and his side-tracking of the issue by affirming that he intends to reform the party clubs.

It is clear that the prime minister is placing his political future on his capacity to create jobs with a track record in very turbulent economic times. The leader of the opposition, on the other hand, is basing his campaign mainly on a change of direction with a more open and united society. Not surprisingly, Alternattiva Demokratika (to their credit), seem to be placing on the political agenda most of the issues that for years have been ignored owing to the traditional parties' reluctance, including Armier, same sex marriage and reform of pensions.

This debate was a positive development and a welcome relief from the usual mediocre encounters between the leaders. Hopefully it will have set a standard to be emulated in future debates so that prior to voting, people would have heard all arguments presented in a civil manner, allowing them to make an informed choice.