Change is a natural phenomenon that pervades our lives. We change and evolve as the years go by, physically and mentally.
Our perceptions change, our environments change, our expectations change, our judgement criteria change.
We live change. We yearn for change. We are attracted by the suggestion of change.
Change is a concept which we easily understand and grasp. We know that anything can be better and we clutch to any notion that promises to make our lives better.

Change process
As the evolutionary change that we experience is very often so seamless, so unnoticeable, we do not give due importance to the change process or to the change agents. We do not realise that change runs on rules that govern the change process and that direct the change agents.
So change has to be handled very carefully. There is change for the sake of change and there is a change for the better.
It is so easy to talk about change. Knowing human psyche, ambitious power mongers talk about change. Their suggestive promises can be well articulated but their concepts are nebulous and their methods not defined. Many people are usually taken in by prophets of change that play on their credulous nature.

Talk vs Action
It is so easy to talk about change. It is so difficult to implement change – a change for the better. As much as people yearn for change, they want the change that they perceive will improve their own position. Often it is very introspective and self-centred, without taking the big view into consideration. Most often than not it is not their fault. They would not have had the opportunity to see things from the high plane.
In the election campaign that is presently under way in the United States, change is the keyword. Every candidate from both the Republican and the Democrat Party is for change. Within the same party, the candidates are competing on who is the better agent for change. Good intentions are being pitted against experience. Concepts against track record. It is interesting to see how these fare in the coming months.

Change cliché
As the general elections are looming in Malta, we hear the word “change” being branded about impetuously. The Labour Party, which has been cooling its heels in the opposition for the past 10 years, is on the front TALKING about change. Like the false prophets, their promises are populist, their concepts hazy and their ways unknown.
Their promises are topped by the cliché of the issue of cost of living.
I remember the 1971 promise of the Labour Party that the people should vote for them if they want to stop the rising of the cost of living “Trid tlaħħaq mal-ħajja, ivvota Labour”. How did Labour attempt to control cost of living during its rule? Bulk buying which destroyed free trade; import substitution which debased industry and made us the laughing stock of the world; and cryptic import licensing.
Was the cost of living controlled by these changes? Not at all. The effect was an astronomical increase in the official price index, a real multiple increase of the official figures as the black market raged in all essential commodities like food and other products as TVs, prams, etc. The effect was an unbearable burden on the consumer as shopping became a hassle; the enrichment of a few Labour stalwarts and the running into bankruptcy of many decent businessmen who could not cope with graft and political discrimination.
The Maltese people have experienced change under Labour rule. The Maltese people have a right to know how Labour will manage the change they are promising now. Will it be any different? What will be different?

Vision
The Nationalist Party has been an agent of change. We changed this country and today we can boast a better quality of life for ALL Maltese. Our track record is good as the results achieved were positive. We have won successive elections because the Maltese people were comfortable with our change process which was deliberately gradual and people friendly. As long as the Nationalist Party keeps projecting a credible vision for the country, as it keeps proving that it is capable to adjust itself, it will keep being chosen as the agent for change for the country.
After all, how can the Maltese people trust the Labour Party to make a positive change in the country when it was not capable of changing itself?