I think we should change our electoral system and have elections every three years. I think we need at least three, otherwise the people in government will say they would not have enough time to implement their manifesto.
Three years should give the ruling party enough time to get things done; yet not enough time to get complacent and arrogant. Not only will the ruling party be working hard to stay in power, but they will also have to keep up and go one better than Opposition promises.
Think of all the things that have been happening in the last few months since election fever started to take hold. Politicians are not only listening to what we have to say but are also, and even more so, working hard to try and please us.
Now wouldn’t you like to see that happen more often than every five years?
We have seen the proposal of amendments to development planning and on Monday George Pullicino announced that the government would be introducing a door-to-door collection scheme for separated recyclable packaging waste in all localities from April 1.
But the most impressive is no doubt Austin Gatt’s “blueskies” subsidised offer, getting broadband internet access for just €3 a month, for one year, irrespective of income. (Aimed at our “vulnerable people”?) – talk about a catch all spin.
You can also see what I mean about the relevance of shorter time spans. What’s more, the PM said that Government is ready to consider that the limit is increased to a much bigger number. The scheme was originally limited to the first 5,000 people to apply on a first-come, first-served basis.
Have another election sooner and we will get yet other wonderful subsidies. However, do note the PM’s words “Government is ready to consider”, no promise there. Vote for us and more manna will be bestowed is the message.
Consumer rights have also been getting a lot of attention of late, although it must be said that it is not only the upcoming elections that is pushing government on consumer rights and the environment but the threat of EU fines for not acting on directives.
The only thing that has not really been promised is more female candidates. There is lip service but no real interest, by all parties including Alternativa Demokratika, to get women involved in the countries decision taking.
It will be interesting to see what the Labour Party comes up with this weekend. But I am not holding my breath. It will have a token representative no doubt, but neither party has made inroads in attracting women to join their front ranks.
To get the right kind of women in parliament requires much more than what the current parties are prepared to spend time and money on.
I know that the calibre of some of the male representatives in the house is not high, but we don’t want that kind of equivalent to represent us. However, it is not a one-sided affair, although the scales are definitely down against female participation. We want the best and the best are not easy to convince that politics is for them.
Ambitious women find losing harder than most men. They want to be sure they will win before throwing their hat in the ring.
But then we have another problem. We have quite a few able women with potential who lack confidence, and it is not surprising.
There is no doubt that the media is not doing its bit either. Men after all run it and they are quite happy with things as they are. Sure they publish a rare radical article, but the subject matter is never followed through, and on the whole gender issues are dealt with superficially.
A letter to The Times from Mary Rose Mifsud in Msida put it rather succinctly. She complained that a current frequently aired commercial depicts internet needs for men and women rather differently, with women appearing ‘backward’ when it comes to technology.
She quite rightly sees the discrepancy in a country “that is aspiring to become a centre of IT excellence”.
She also questioned what the gender equality watchdog is there for. Not much is my reading of the situation. The proof is that gender equality is not a priority in the catch-all politicians’ spin.

More angst is caused by the hunting lobby, which the government has been forced to take on or risk hefty EC fines with regard to stopping spring hunting, in time for the spring election.
Now the hunting federation is taking the PM and the former EU information centre to court, for what it described as their betrayal on the spring hunting issue.
The FKNK claims it has documented evidence, which clearly and “unequivocally” states that by means of the application of derogation under the Birds Directive, Malta in the EU would still permit sustainable hunting in spring while respecting the parameters of the derogation.
This is clearly damaging for the current administration. It hardly needs accusations of “giving misleading information” right now.
The federation is claiming that the promise made by the government, through a letter sent by the Office of the Prime Minister to hunters and trappers before the 2003 election, that spring hunting would remain unchanged after EU accession, amounted to a formal commitment.
However, the federation is skating on thin ice and knows it. It can no longer play one party against the other on the hunting issue. The Labour Party has committed itself not to go against the hunting directive.

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com