Globalisation is a very sensitive issue all over the world. Long gone are the days when you could be sure that distant locations would never outbid you or that factories in foreign lands would not offer a product that was as good as yours but cheaper. The list of what is exposed and vulnerable to foreign competition grows longer by the day. Everyone recognises all this - except, that is, our Leader of the Opposition.
The reminders are everywhere. For example, in the United States last Monday, the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers put his foot in his mouth when he talked about outsourcing. This has come to mean the increasingly common industrial practice of taking domestic lines of production and moving them abroad where wages are cheaper. Modern technology and cheap communications have made outsourcing easier and more effective than it ever was.
N. Gregory Mankiw said that outsourcing was "probably a plus for the economy in the long run." As flip and insensitive as that remark was, you can see where he was coming from. Economists generally disapprove of any restrictions on free trade. They view such blockage as counterproductive, while free trade will convey large benefits to all countries in the long run.
A few days later, Mr Mankiw recanted, saying, "My lack of clarity left the wrong impression that I praised the loss of US jobs." President Bush chimed in with further corrective language. US exposure to foreign trade is far less than Malta's but Mr Mankiw was accused of being "politically tone-deaf."
Here we are at the other extreme. It has come to be expected that Dr Sant will strike at the government from all angles. Even when the economy was booming, he was posturing and grandstanding. Now, the Opposition pretends to be outraged at the state of the economy. Their charade is so obvious. Last week, Dr Sant asked: How can Labour be part of a social pact if the government is not prepared to admit that we have a crisis?
For Labour, it is all a matter of posturing. What drives Labour's participation in a pact is not the country's interest, but political expediency. They call for another "peaceful" demonstration. What other kind of demonstration is there? Is there a hint there that Labour has not been completely de-fanged?
Repeatedly, Dr Sant rejects any suggestion that the forces of globalisation are playing a part in our economic performance. With his background, he should know that globalisation poses a severe threat especially to labour intensive industries that have the most to gain from relocating to where they find lower wages.
Yet when we had the downsizing of precisely such labour intensive industry, Labour had few solutions. Before they wanted a continuation of protection. Now they call on their supporters to take to the streets and seem bent on spreading panic.
If Labour thinks that globalisation has nothing to do with us, how does Alfred Sant explain our falling export prices? What are other countries complaining about? Does he really believe that the same economic forces that are shaking the entire world have simply passed us by?
He accuses the government of using globalisation as a smokescreen. If he is honestly so oblivious to reality, could he be trusted to take the right measures if he were ever to become prime minister? No! Given how Labour governments have traditionally let the infrastructure go to the dogs, can we trust a next Labour government with providing the economy with the infrastructure that keeps it ahead of the technological curve? Hardly!
According to the opposition, globalisation and restructuring have a thing in common. No, not that the two go hand in hand - that restructuring becomes an ongoing process and becomes even more inevitable as economic borders fade away. As far as Labour is concerned, the two are empty words and what they have in common is that they are both government smokescreens.
Restructuring is anything but a smokescreen. It makes unemployment rise for a while, and it is also the long-term solution to the problems brought about by decades of the protection and import barriers that are a legacy of Labour's past.
Negative
We are now celebrating the Prime Minister's achievements and the legacy he leaves to the country and to his successor.
Eddie Fenech Adami picked up where the Socialists left off. The country was in shambles after two decades of Socialist excesses. At home, we had political violence, perverse election outcomes, an economy somewhere between the third world and behind the Iron Curtain led by a government that thrived on restrictions, controls and deprivation. Abroad, there was chumminess with some very odious regimes.
He leaves the country firmly inside the European Union, with an infrastructure that provides abundant water in our homes, the latest in telecommunications, a vastly expanded tertiary education, and much more. In the works are a new state-of-the art public hospital, an improved road system and more.
Now it is a far cry from the days when few entered the University, when owning cordless phones was a criminal offence and where the Finance Minister used to solemnly announce to Parliament and to the citizens the next move in the price of corned beef, tuna and canned milk!
Sometimes, I wonder whether Dr Sant ever wakes up in the middle of the night, thinking "What will they be saying about me when I reach that same stage in life?" I wonder what kind of answers he comes up before he gets back to sleep.
He achieved plenty abroad, what with his studies at Harvard, the Sorbonne, and what not. But right here at home, what did he achieve? Other than one seashore promenade, what else is his claim to fame in his two years or so as prime minister? Yes, there is also the new pavement in Republic Street. But what else has there been that is not negative and reactionary, obstructionist and bull-headed?
His government went down in history as the one consumed by an implosion within his own party, about - of all things - a marina. He tried to straighten us out with a manifold heist in electricity and water rates, but we were saved by - of all people - Dom Mintoff. The economy sputtered, and that was at a time when the international context was anything but hostile.
Now his behaviour gets progressively worse. His is always the negative touch. How he rose to become the leader of his party has been questioned. He was viscerally against EU membership. He went from factory to factory whipping up anti-EU sentiment. His party kept track of the minutiae, like what would happen to the price of corned beef after accession, but they were clueless or perhaps deceptive about the bigger picture.
When he lost the referendum, he claimed victory. After losing the election, he claims deceit on the government's part. Now, he obstructs a social pact. What started as a heinous attempt on the life on the prime minister's personal assistant, he turned into a crude attempt to impugn the prime minister himself.
The Prime Minister will long be remembered as a strong positive force that shaped the country for many decades to come. What a contrast with Alfred Sant: When the history books are eventually written, there will be little to remember him by except for a solidly negative contribution, with a knack for some really wild claims.
When will we see real change in the Labour Party? Despite the two new deputy leaders, Dr Sant still seems to be able to set the agenda, which still appears misguided and hardly in the interest of a changed image for the Labour Party.
www.josefbonnici.com