The Locals are Revolting

Is the world coming to and end? It was with no small measure of astonishment that I found the coverage of the local elections in The Times to be informative and detailed in the right measure. Astoundingly, even the editorial was timely as well as sensible. The cartoon, however, was of the "say what you see" standard, though even the most unyielding optimist would be foolish to expect anything in that quarter. The Times wonders what the sources of disaffection might be:

"Is it a sign of no confidence in the local council system per se? Or is distrust the result of the manner in which the political parties dominate council and councillors? Could it be that electors are using local elections to demonstrate discontent at the way the country in general is being run, in which case local councils are having to shoulder shortcomings over which they have no control whatsoever?"

For a change The Times is asking the right questions. First, it was only obvious that the appeal of local elections was not necessarily the most sensitive barometer of the political mood. When the voters of Marsaxlokk elected an (allegedly) illiterate fisherman as their mayor, what did that say about the position of those villagers on the political spectrum? Perhaps that they are socially conservative, fiscally prudent, like fish, and what you thought was a collection of encyclopaedias is actually a plastic cover for the DVD collection. What's more, most of those DVDs are Jean-Claude Van Damme films, not forgetting the worn-out VHS copy of Best of the Best.
Distrust may also be an overvalued element. As the Maltese like telling visting foreigners, the island is so small that most people know eachother. Thanks be to God, this is untrue. But in many localities, that description is not far off the mark, which makes the issue of trust not wholly relevant. One tends develop certain attitudes towards potential canditates, say someone known locally as Censu is-sikkina, on the basis of intimate knowledge of personalities rather than conviction in that individual's competence.
It could be that people have used the local elections to "demonstrate discontent at the way the country in general is being run". The main trend coming out of these and previous elections, however, has been the decline in voter turnout. As the day's leading story relates "turnout was 66 per cent, down from 88 per cent in 2003, and 71 per cent in 2000". Cursory analysis suggests that the voter have not much used the election as not used the election, if that's clear.
What is less satisfying about this editorial piece is the mystifying lack of answers:

"The messages are clear. If the political parties wish to ignore them, as they are prone to do, it will only be at their peril. A close analysis of the results ought to show that promises of rose gardens are as ineffective as preaching gloom and doom.
The electorate has evidently decided to put their interests first, be it on local or national issues."

To paraphrase, the results show that promising too much is bad, as is saying things are not going well. And that's clear. You can ignore that, but don't tell me I didn't warn you. Oh, and the electorate has put their interests first. We don't why, but they have. Alright?!
Now, can I be bothered to delete that first paragraph? Nah!