The choice the electorate was called to make in 2013 was clear: between a Nationalist Party past its sell-by date and a Labour Party full of ideas and rearing to go.
Four years later, the party in power was facing serious allegations of corruption but went on to win an even bigger mandate.
This makes for a familiar situation as we enter the home stretch to the next general election, whether it will come in weeks or months.
The polls show Labour is likely to win a new term by a landslide, despite the responsibility the government bears for the murder of a journalist and for the country’s abysmal standards of governance and integrity.
Even if the outcome seems almost sure, uncertainty still prevails in the lead-up to an election.
Prime Minister Robert Abela is keeping his cards close to his chest on whether he will call a pre-Christmas election or ride it out until sometime next year.
Businesses and consumers tend to get nervous in a climate of uncertainty. It is about time that the big parties put the country first and discuss having a fixed term, with the election being held, say, five years after the opening of parliament.
Whether the general election goes ahead next month or next year, the electorate should now be entering a period of reflection.
In a country whose political culture is imbued with favouritism and the granting of favours as a political weapon, it may be too much to expect the majority to ask what they can do for the country, by their vote, rather than what the country (or its politicians) can do for them.
But let’s imagine that most voters cast their ballot based not just on personal profit but also on seeking the common good.
On paper, the people are being asked to choose between a “new prosperity” (Labour) and “being the change” (PN).
Among the bread-and-butter issues they should be considering are the effectiveness of healthcare, the performance of our education system, the state of the environment, Malta’s general economic prospects and its standards of governance.
The general consensus on health is that Malta has coped with the COVID-19 pandemic better than most other countries, thanks in large part to its high rate of vaccination.
Would the PN or Labour do the better job if the pandemic persists?
On education, results and investor feedback show the system is failing to produce enough of the talent needed to attract substantial new investment.
Can we hope Labour finally manages some improvements in educational performance or should we entrust the PN with this vital task?
The environment is another issue that demands serious voter scrutiny: which of the two parties has the courage and competence to lead Malta in a new direction, away from the construction mania that is ruining both islands?
In terms of the economy, serious challenges loom on the horizon, as the country struggles with problems of its own making, such as a tattered reputation, lack of skills in its workforce and lack of diversity in its economic base.
Would the PN or PL lay the stronger foundations of future prosperity?
As for governance, the Labour government has excelled at the bad, with checks and balances crumbling in the face of an alliance formed of politics and business under the banner of self-enrichment.
Is a Robert Abela or a Bernard Grech the one to clean up politics?
These are the choices the electorate should be paying attention to, not the empty slogans posted by the two parties along our traffic-choked roads.