Politics in the age of Love Island

The local popularity of programmes such as the TV show Love Island reveals much about contemporary culture, particularly when such formats become normalised through the national broadcaster.

In the Maltese context, however, the Love Island phenomenon offers more than entertainment analysis; it provides a revealing lens through which to understand politics itself. Increasingly, political life in Malta appears shaped more by spectacle, performance, emotional alignment and public visibility. Politics risks becoming a permanent reality show.

Like contestants on Love Island, politicians today are engaged in continuous performance, acutely aware that political survival depends on remaining visible and relatable. The logic of social media has intensified this transformation. Carefully staged photographs, heavily edited clips, emotionally charged posts and strategic outrage frequently attract more public engagement than substantive political debate.

In the hope of becoming the season’s favourite, the politician increasingly ceases to be merely a representative of ideas or communities and instead becomes a carefully edited personality to be consumed, defended, celebrated or symbolically ‘voted out”.

This shift to ‘desirability politics’ has serious consequences for democratic culture. In a small and politically polarised society such as Malta, where tribal loyalties already run deep, the move towards entertainment-driven, manipulative, ‘10/10’ politics risks reducing citizens to spectators, with immediacy, charisma and the ability to generate loud moments seemingly scoring high points.

Reality television also operates through the constant management of alliances, exclusions and emotional loyalties, and contemporary politics increasingly mirrors these dynamics. Political ‘coupling’ becomes a public performance of loyalty, while dissent is frequently punished both socially and politically.

Politics risks becoming a permanent reality show- Carmel Borg

The pressure to remain within one’s partisan ‘camp’ resembles the tribal structures cultivated in reality television formats. Nuance becomes politically risky because spectacle thrives on certainty. In the process, the public sphere is therefore narrowed into binary positions in which disagreement is interpreted not as democratic engagement but as betrayal.

At the same time, the comparison should not be dismissed simply as evidence of cultural decline or democratic decay. The popularity of spectacle politics also exposes a society searching for recognition, connection and narrative in an age of growing political fatigue and institutional distrust. Many citizens no longer experience political institutions as spaces capable of responding meaningfully to everyday anxieties and aspirations.

Personality-driven politics fills the vacuum left by weakened public trust, fragmented social bonds and the decline of collective political imagination. In this sense, the spectacle is not merely imposed from above; it is also sustained by deeper social insecurities and emotional needs. In participating in political spectacles, we are often searching for a likeable version of ourselves. The bombshell within.

The challenge, therefore, is not only political but profoundly pedagogical. It raises urgent questions about democratic education and civic culture. How do we cultivate citizens capable of engaging politically beyond spectacle and emotional manipulation? How do we create spaces where disagreement does not require theatrical hostility, where complexity is not treated as weakness and where politics can recover ethical depth, critical reflection and collective imagination? These are educational as much as political questions.

Perhaps the greatest danger is not that politics increasingly resembles Love Island but that society gradually begins to accept entertainment as the natural language of democracy itself. Once politics becomes indistinguishable from spectacle, democratic life risks losing its capacity for complexity, collective responsibility and paradigm shifts.

Carmel Borg is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, University of Malta.