Another provocation...

The reaction to the passing away of Gianni Agnelli confirmed that the Avvocato was more than the sum of his functional roles in Fiat and in Italy. It proved - if there was need of proof - that he was more than Fiat's number one, more than the helmsman of the fortune of the Agnelli family, more than a former president of Confindustria, more than one of the most authoritative representatives of the Italian grande borghesia.

Not all those who were moved by his death loved him, on the contrary. Among those that felt deep inside their guts that Italy was no longer the same without Gianni Agnelli were the metalworkers for whom he was the "class-enemy". There were also the small- and medium-sized entrepreneurs for whom Fiat was one of a handful of large industrial groups that had long kidnapped the state and its financial resources leaving none of the latter to them.

There is a broad consensus that he was a national "force", a person whose views could not be ignored by either friend or foe, an individual whose authority required no formal role in the state or in civil society and whose power transcended his role as an employer of thousands of blue and white-collar workers.

On this there is general agreement: on the right as well as on the left of the political spectrum, in the north and in the Mezzogiorno, among all social classes. They may not quite understand - nor care to understand - the mechanisms of this power, they may disagree about whether it is a "good" thing or a "bad" one, but they all agree that within the Italian context Agnelli had been a prime mover and not one who allowed himself to be moved. A puppeteer, the cynical would add, not a puppet.

Do we have anyone of Agnelli's calibre among the business elite in Malta and Gozo? Would the passing away of any entrepreneur in din l-art helwa leave the sort of trace that Agnelli left behind in the minds and hearts of Italians of all regions, classes, political persuasions, enemies included? If there are I cannot see them. The national debate about EU membership is a case in point. Not one entrepreneur has distinguished himself from the herd to present the interests of the economy as a whole or at least the views of the whole business community about this issue independently of and with equal dignity to the world of politics. Take note, I said "the interests of the economy as a whole" meaning the interests of employers and employees. Take note, I said "the views of the whole business community" and not the views of one firm or of one economic sector.

Of course, it is not easy to present the interests of industry as a whole or even the views of the whole business community on an issue of such paramount importance. It is certainly an extremely difficult task. It is difficult for the simple reason that the consequences of membership on the conditions obtained by the present Maltese government are not the same for all the stakeholders. Some business owners and some shareholders will benefit and some will not. In many cases the owners and the shareholders will not do badly if they adapt to the new situation. Their survival, however, will require them to sacrifice the interests of their employees. It is certainly not easy for any captain of industry to rise above her or his personal and sectoral circumstances to represent the whole of this situation in its complex entirety. It is not easy intellectually and it is not easy morally.

It is not easy intellectually because it is frankly difficult for anyone to comprehend the situation as a whole. Not many of our entrepreneurs are trained - and I am not restricting myself to academic training, I am also thinking of the university of life - for that sort of holistic understanding.

It is not easy morally because few, if any, of our entrepreneurs are capable of distancing themselves from their own immediate personal interests and to admit that there may well be other interests that are as valid as theirs and, therefore, merit the same attention and consideration. I do not wish to exaggerate the moral dimension.

To give attention to the interests of others, in this case, need not be understood in a moral sense. It would suffice for this attention to be motivated by enlightened self-interest. Understanding the consequences of membership requires this sort of holistic understanding. A one-sided understanding will not forewarn us of the social ruptures that are bound to follow if the interests of certain stakeholders are ignored. The cost of such ruptures must be taken into consideration when considering the pluses and minuses of membership and the viability of the national economy after that. Hence "enlightened self-interest".

The best European entrepreneurs since the Second World War have understood the necessity of considering the effects of both corporate and political decisions on all the stakeholders of the national economy. This is not to say that they have sacrificed their interests to accommodate employees nor that they have abandoned profit as the ultimate yardstick of corporate success or failure.

On the contrary, it is to say that they have understood that if the interests of all stakeholders are not considered (and their likely reaction to any decision that fails to recognise their interests is not factored in), ultimately it is the profit yardstick itself that will show they have taken the wrong decision. The economic viability of a project requires a serious consideration of its social consequences. One may well decide to proceed even if the social consequences are painful for one of the stakeholders, but one will have done so with one's eyes open.

Are there any Maltese and Gozitan entrepreneurs who are capable of such a holistic vision in the best traditions of European enterprise? If there are, they have so far kept a very low profile indeed. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not saying that any such entrepreneur will necessarily opt against Malta's EU membership under the conditions accepted by the present government. Nor am I saying what such an entrepreneur will necessarily opt for. All I am saying is such a leader of the business community will speak out with the wisdom of a holistic view without ignoring the costs for all the stakeholders. Such a leader, whose coming is not in sight, will not tolerate political puppeteers of any political persuasion.

Austin Bencini says that the first of my "European credentials" pieces (February 25) is "a partisan provocation just a few days from the referendum!" (exclamation mark in the original). Dr Bencini accuses me of attempting to deviate the discussion on to the ground of partisan politics. Hmm... I must admit I had not noticed that the discussion was taking place on ground untainted by partisan politics and I humbly apologise for infecting this celestial dialogue between disembodied souls with something as low and vulgar as terrestrial party politics.

Then with a shower of rhetorical flourishes, with an awesome tour de force of verbal fireworks worthy of the grandest village festa, Dr Bencini invites us to reason less and to feel more ("reason is a dangerous thing if not accompanied by feeling").

The curtain falls on a choir singing (quote): "This is Dr Fenech Adami's book on Europe. He is writing it together with each and every one of us, Maltese and Gozitans, irrespective of our partisan beliefs when together, in an expression of national unity, we shall vote yes." Reminiscent of odes to the heavenly leader Kim Il Sung? Of the leader cults that flourished in Europe itself when reason was put aside?