From buzzwords to consensus

Modern advertising campaigns, public relations or concept-selling are linked to buzzwords. It is typically a word or phrase connected to a specialised field or group that usually sounds important or technical. Maltese political history has enjoyed quite a substantial variety of such buzzwords which, more often that not, have ended up into a cauldron of misinterpretations and misuse. They have usually been used as a convenient reference by anyone wanting to amplify a point or an argument; the latest of them all is "competitiveness".

For the first time in Maltese political history, the government has set up a ministry directly responsible for competitiveness, giving a clear indication that the issue had to be urgently shifted to the very top of its national agenda. The outcome, as expected, was that a big majority of the population had become aware of this issue, in turn putting forth various proposals as to how this could be achieved. Within this context, a significant representative of society, which should, at least in theory, carry out its constitutional obligation to keep the government in check, is the party in opposition. This concept is fundamental to any parliamentary democracy. However, there unfortunately lies a substantial divergence between theories and realities.

The irony is that while the opposing party has been constantly underlining the need to be competitive, its unpremeditated statements and immature approach to issues of national sensitivity are threatening and undermining potential investments, political confidence and financial credibility. The devaluation proposal is a prime example. Such a measure is viewed as a sign of economic weakness, endangering our creditworthiness and significantly dampening investor confidence in the country's economy while hurting its ability to secure foreign investment.

In plain words our competitiveness would be eroded, besides the 10 per cent sudden cost of living increase and the high probability that the country is driven into a recession.

At that instance it was evident that the opposition had absolutely no idea on what our competitiveness strategy should encompass but instead was focusing on an inconsistent campaign aimed at tarnishing our country's self-confidence. This belief was confirmed to me a few days later when during the budget debate pertinent to my ministry it was more than clear that the opposition had absolutely no idea of the responsibilities belonging to this political office, being in themselves vital pillars for competitiveness.

The opposition MPs who contributed to the discussion shamefully refrained from underlining the necessity for standards, issues pertinent to trade and commerce, intellectual property, ship registration, competition policy, consumer rights and obligations, civil aviation regulations, the development of our maritime potentials, yacht marinas and the projects being undertaken, telecommunications and the astounding success registered within this sector. I was under the impression that industry and its well-being was fundamental to their political agenda but, again, at no instance throughout the course of the debate were issues of research, development.

Following the publication of the World Economic Forum competitiveness update, which has been conveniently used by the opposition for partisan purposes, I had at least expected that, during the one-and-a-half hour parliamentary debate pertinent to competitiveness, Malta's rankings and the government's counter measures would have been one of the main topics under discussion. Instead, the contribution was vague, steered beyond the point, unprepared and immature. The only serious proposal, and to which I give credit, was the one made by my colleague, Karmenu Vella, calling for a national competitiveness measure. In fact, my ministry was already working on a similar concept.

While the government has succeeded in raising national awareness on competitiveness in a bid to move along defined and common visions, the opposition is limiting itself to translating the term "competitiveness" into a political buzzword, solely for the sake of sounding important, mature, managerial and technical. This is where supposed converging lines of national interest diverge.

I have maintained on more than one occasion that competitiveness is a national responsibility. The government shapes the parameters within which the nation can perform, ensuring that excessive bureaucracy and untenable work practices are shed. However, neither the competitiveness ministry nor any other entity can work on its own but a common effort by the government and all interested parties needs to be made, this being in itself the most vital element for the successful implementation of our objectives.

The first Gonzi government's budget speech encompasses the necessary driving force to ensure a healthy economy, increase foreign investments, attract potential niche markets and strengthen even further those areas where we lag behind.

While addressing the issues that required urgent consideration, the budget ensured that negative impacts are kept to a minimum. We do understand that certain measures could have lacked popular sympathy. However, it is inconceivable that certain entities within the socio-economic sphere have detached themselves from national discussion and are attempting to hinder our determination in increasing productivity, efficiency, competitiveness and the well-being of our economy.

National obligations should be shouldered with responsibility... we should think and act long term and not address issues as they surface. The positive ripple effect of operating within a dynamic and healthy economy will ultimately be shifted towards the very benefit of our workers. These are the added values we are progressing.

The world has undergone drastic changes. Throughout these years we have witnessed a dramatic shift of operations within the manufacturing industry. In fact many companies have transferred business to the Far East, primarily due to the benefits of cheap labour.

Technology has taken over and its use has become an integral and fundamental tool in our day-to-day proceedings. When up to five years ago mobile phones were considered to be a luxury, today over 80 per cent of the Maltese population owns one.

Political, economic and social factors around the globe have shaped new realties and like it or not we have to adapt. Lacking natural resources and an extensive manufacturing economy we cannot survive independently from others. Past experience has taught us that positive or negative events taking place in other countries always have a widespread effect around the globe. It is therefore within this context that present and, most importantly, future realities have to be addressed now.

In Europe, countries which up to 14 years ago were ripped apart by harsh political conflicts and shadowed by the seemingly insurmountable Iron Curtain have today emerged into modern and fast-developing nations, enjoying social prosperity and sound economic gains. In fact, when up to a decade ago tourists would not consider including these countries into their travel itinerary, such destinations are today overbooked by thousands, with the obvious result that Malta has lost part of its share. The adoption, implementation and maintenance of a high quality product, the development of niche markets and the concept of value for money were the main catalysts behind this accumulative shift in tourists towards the former Eastern bloc. Such lessons in history beckon.

This is primarily why this budget has also, among other issues, seriously addressed tourism, intrinsically tying together accountability and delivery to the financing of the Malta Tourism Authority. Malta may offer the best infrastructures, unique cultures and traditions, but if each and every one of us does not realise that this sector is a crucial contribution to our economy and well-being then all the government's efforts would be futile.

It is very easy to criticise especially without offering viable alternatives. It is always convenient to play opposition, particularly if "buzzwords" are inconsistently used to feed staunch supporters with incorrect realities. On the other hand it is very difficult to play ball. This is the "consensus" I feel should take place.

Mr Galea is Minister for Competitiveness and Communications

www.mcmp.gov.mt