A more active role for civil society

The Malta Council for Economic Development, as it was first known, was set up in the 1989. It was primarily intended to bring the social partners together to deal with the main economic issues, especially industrial relations.

The need for such a structure had been especially felt during the Phoenicia trauma that resulted from misunderstanding, distrust and miscalculation. It was felt that such a structure - bringing the three social partners, the government, the employers and the unions, together - would help avert future confrontation.

This structure was in line with a developing trend in Malta for social dialogue that has been going on for years. The advantages of such a body were that it had the main industrial relations actors present, it served as a medium for communication between these actors, especially on occasions of industrial strife, and it could influence the government while not being part of the government itself.

Most of all, the social partners were satisfied with it. It faced two main problems. One was the lack of resources and the other was that it never featured as an ongoing useful structure to the government until there was some crisis in industrial relations.

Yet, all three social partners wanted such a mechanism which could be used to defuse serious situations. It was true that they recognised certain shortcomings, but their criticism was always aimed at improving the structure rather than to do away with it.

The structure, based on the idea of social dialogue, was accepted by both main political parties. The Labour Party, however, saw certain shortcomings and wanted to develop it on wider, more modern and democratic lines.

It recognised that the civil society had developed to such an extent that it could provide a representative voice for different interests and sectors of society. Thus, the idea was to have a wider body dealing with economic and social issues. The Forum for a Better Economy was the answer.

However, there was resistance from the other social partners to have a wider body. It was felt that if wider interests were to form part of such a structure, the structure might lose its focus and the social partners might lose their importance through dilution. Moreover, some of the partners felt they themselves represented also the wider interests of society and, thus, the structure was democratic enough and there was no need for wider representation.

Thus, a compromise was found between the two positions. A two- council structure was set up in July 1997 where the MCED still held on to its structure and original role. However, the second council, the advisory council, had much wider representation.

The advisory council had its own chairman and a life of its own. The chairman of the MCED also attended these meetings though other contact between the two structures was sparse.

The advisory council had wide representation from different ministries, government-appointed advisory bodies and NGOs relevant to the task it was entrusted with.

The advisory council was entrusted to prepare an outline of a plan for economic development within a year. There were three main areas which were considered: general strategic considerations, specifically Malta as a hub and competition from neighbouring countries, the public sector and its role in future development and the quality of life and social issues.

Wide consultation, especially with NGOs, took place to gather information and, thus, integrate a wide perspective of ideas. It should be noted that the response from the departments was not that forthcoming while there was resistance from the then Planning Authority as it was felt that planning was its own role and the Forum was usurping this responsibility. In fact, when data was requested from the PA, payment was requested.

However, within one year the plan was ready and Value 2000 was published. The report was widely accepted. As the then opposition also accepted Value 2000, there was no controversy about it and, thus, like anything non-controversial in Malta, soon died a natural death.

The Forum later expanded and an Economic Policy Council was added to the structure. Its role was changing rapidly but, for the purpose of this article, there is no need to delve into more detail.

Another change in government in 1998 brought about another step forward. An Act was enacted by parliament in 2001 setting up the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD).

As it is, the structure is a two-tier one - the Council for Economic and Social Development and a Committee for the Civil Society were set up. The council is the higher body and is composed of the social partners.

The committee is made up of representatives of the civil society. The legislation also defines social partners and civil society. The definition of the "social partners" used in the legislation is mainstream and includes the representatives of the government, the workers and the employers.

The reason for this is that the original council was devised as a structure to handle economic issues, especially industrial relations. It was found that it was a good structure and that is why it survived even without any legislative backing and meagre support. That is also why dealing with economic and industrial relations should be one of the roles of the council.

The present legislation also defines "civil society". According to the present legislation, civil society "includes all those organisations of persons established to seek the common good and whose main aims are neither to generate profits nor to seek executive power". It excludes political parties but it includes NGOs. However, it also includes government appointed bodies which are not NGOs and, thus, do not fall within the widely accepted definition of civil society.

The Active Citizenship Network, which is managing an EU project - "Citizens for the New Europe" defines civil society as including those organisations - whatever their scope, size, juridical status, motivation, membership which are self-created and self-managed by citizens. Such an organisation operates on a mainly voluntary basis, it is active in the area of public policies and aims at protecting citizens' rights and/or taking care of the common good.

It does not seek profit and acts for the general interest rather than its members' particular interests. It is independent both of political parties and private entities.

If strict adherence is made to the widely accepted definition, then only the National Youth Council and the Consumers' Association would fit in. The Local Council Association would not fit in as it represents local government and acts on behalf of the local councils. The National Council for the Elderly, the National Commission Persons with Disability and the Commission for the Advancement of Women are all government appointed bodies and, thus, do not represent civil society.

This does not mean that they do not have a role to play within the MCESD.

In the present structure, the council, made up of the three social partners, appoints the committee so long as it includes the permanent members. The council also has the power to set the rules of procedure which regulate the committee and establish the quorum at meetings thereof.

There is no role specifically assigned to the committee. The committee "shall be consulted on all those issues which the council may, in its discretion, refer to it". To date the council has not consulted the committee on any issue. In fact, if one were to assess the functioning of the Civil Society Committee and be objective the performance of this committee has been dismal. The members of the committee are not at fault.

The Civil Society Committee met six times since its first meeting in October 2001. The only achievement of this committee in these two years was that the membership of this committee was expanded since all realised that if no further NGOs are included the name of the committee would be a misnomer. However, it is with consternation I note that the environmental NGOs have not yet been included, in spite of the fact that the Consumers' Association, at the first meeting of the committee, requested this.

This is a far cry from the impact that the civil society groups had in similar structures in other countries and also in the EU Economic and Social Committee. These groups gave a very positive contribution because the structure and the role assigned to them permitted their active participation in all matters.

Part II will appear tomorrow.