In the conclusion of its editorial "Nine just citizens" (February 4), The Times said: "If we are to look at revising the criminal justice system so be it. But only after a proper consultation process, and certainly not before a few people on both sides are rational enough to hold a discussion".
Have we really come to this? Maybe the hint is that, first and foremost, what we should be revising is the way that we do politics in this country.
To my mind, our society is not only over-politicised but also over-governed and grossly mis-governed. And things will not necessarily get better through Malta's membership of the European Union.
We will be adding another layer of governance without at least re-dimensioning those existing at the national and local levels. This seems to be too hefty a price for the nationhood of a population the size of a small European city.
Many local commentators consistently point to the hegemony that our political class has over local society. Politics have permeated every sphere of local life, every institution. The fear of losing votes has weakened the public policymaking process.
Political patronage has generated a new form of social dependence. We have come to expect everything, all the time, from the government. And for free. Chronic and structural deficits in the government budgets are limiting the possibility of the political class buying its way out of this self-inflicted quandary.
National regeneration demands thinking outside the box, a disposition to question everything, with an open frame of mind. It presents a test of maturity to our political class, which alone has the power to drive the necessary changes. Will our politicians succeed in putting aside partisan divides so as to take our society forward?
In modern-day democracies, political legitimisation is no longer the domain of ideology or nationalist sentiments. It is grounded in economic performance, the ability of meeting the ever-rising expectations and aspirations of people. They want cars, cellular phones, computers... This is a worldwide phenomenon, the rooting powder of the forces of globalisation. Political, social and economic considerations are increasingly intertwined, creating strong, mutually-affecting links.
In less-advanced economies like ours, which lag behind in institutional and enterprise development, this is becoming a very sensitive issue. A dichotomy is emerging between political and economic time. An economy needs at least 10 years to reposition itself on the international market. Political time rarely exceeds five years; the next election represents the ultimate horizon. Politicians have come to live for the day, leaving little scope for longer term considerations.
Also, the dynamics of local politics have to evolve from their command and conflict orientation. The party in power can no longer expect to prevail all the time. The basis has to shift towards bargaining and competition. The party in power will have to acknowledge that on many critical issues it cannot go all the way on its own. This is why all the talk about social pacts.
This requires that public policymaking, from its formulation to its implementation, becomes less authoritative and more consensus-seeking.
Our politicians too have to learn how to work together in the public interest while maintaining their distinct identities. Driving national regeneration demands a changed style of political leadership. Fewer and fewer people are interested in just sweet talk. They, like patients, want to know the truth, even if it hurts.
They want to have the confidence and security that they are in reliable hands. The political parties have to stop sending diametrically opposed messages. Who are the people to believe? Sadly, we have practically no autonomous institutions which can convey an impartial viewpoint.
Conflicting messages create confusion and uncertainty and arouse suspicions as to the real motives behind the agenda for reform. They also make it impossible for the social partners to connect with their grassroots. Increasingly, people want to understand why, and how, they are expected to change and accept the pain involved.
The social partners should ask for a coherent strategic plan so as to know exactly what is expected of each one of them. And to make sure that no one of them carries the full brunt of the reform process. For any programme of radical change to be sustainable, it has to be, and should be perceived, as being equitable. This plan should also enable our country to formulate a vision, to create a sense of direction as to what type of society and economy we want.
Indeed, the point of departure should not be what are we leaving behind but what the future beckons.
Perhaps the vote for Europe was also a vote of no confidence in our politicians. There appears to be a steep decline in trust in the whole political system. Too often, politicians are perceived not to mean what they say. They do not even treat each other with honesty, there is too much mud-slinging. Do we have too many politicians who are merely schemers looking after their vested interests?
If the political class fails to respect itself it should not be surprised that the people will no longer respect it.