Editorial: The advantage of being in charge in Malta

More than two decades ago, then opposition leader Alfred Sant repeatedly warned that the Nationalist government was deploying the full weight of incumbency to secure a ‘Yes’ vote in the EU referendum.

He claimed the state machinery, with its visibility, authority, and especially access to resources, was being leveraged to shape public opinion. There is little doubt that incumbency was indeed a factor then.

Yet, even though we acknowledge the tactics used in the past, as subtle as they were, what we are witnessing in the first week of the 2026 electoral campaign feels like something else entirely – today it’s in your face.

Of course, in Malta, the power of incumbency (the advantages that an incumbent has over challengers in an election) is more evident than in most countries. Our small size, tight-knit communities, and deeply entrenched party loyalties amplify its effects. Politics in Malta remains transactional, and the line between governance and campaigning becomes dangerously blurred.

The first few days of election campaigning has already provided examples. Within minutes of Robert Abela announcing a general election, many government street billboards were turned into slogans for the Labour Party.

At a press conference, PN MP Adrian Delia alleged that ministries have been directly contacting individuals with offers of employment, jobs that “start immediately”. Few doubted him because it’s an open secret in Malta: the state’s resources can be mobilised, and jobs are given out, fines are quietly waived and permits expedited (the list is endless) in return for your vote.

Among other pledges, Abela called a news conference to announce a third interconnector – there was no reason for that to be called other than the fact we are in an electoral campaign. 

It is troubling to know public funds (that’s our taxes) are being used to bolster the ruling party’s campaign, whichever way you choose to vote or not to. It is troubling to know the line between official government business and political messaging has become increasingly difficult to discern.

There is nothing wrong with a government showcasing its achievements. On the contrary, voters should judge administrations based on what they deliver. But there is a crucial distinction between highlighting past performance and actively using state resources and money to influence electoral outcomes.

Opposition parties can never compete on this terrain. They do not control ministries, public budgets, and cannot distribute benefits. The imbalance is clearly evidenced in the first week of campaigning – there’s been a noticeable gulf in the scale and polish of promos and gatherings organised by the Labour Party and those by the Nationalist Party. Abela even emerged from Castille to address his party’s May Day mass meeting. We are not commenting on proposals here – that will come in a separate editorial.

Recent history reinforces these concerns. In 2022, voters received cheques and tax refunds in the run-up to the election.  International observers noted similar dynamics. Assessments by organisations such as the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights have pointed to the use of public resources by governing parties, as well as shortcomings in transparency and campaign finance oversight.

Likewise, organisations such as Transparency International have highlighted broader patterns in Malta’s political culture: clientelism, patronage networks, and the blurring of boundaries between party and state.

We are not saying that Malta’s elections are rigged. On the contrary, with the notable exception of 1981, the country has maintained a strong record of democratic legitimacy. But that record should not breed complacency, and we have a duty to question the tactics being used, as subtle as they may be. 

Because ultimately, the integrity of our electoral process depends not just on the outcome, but on the fairness of the contest itself.