A test of character for Lawrence Gonzi

For the past two years, Lawrence Gonzi has faced several tough decisions but they were all of one kind. They all involved short-term pain (for the country and his political party) in return for putative long-term gain (for the country and possibly his party). The development zone issue raises a new kind of tough decision: it raises the temptation of short-term gain (for the party) in return for long-term pain (for the country). How he deals with the decision will reveal much about his character, his own appraisal of his political prospects, and the nature of his political legacy.

The government's announcement that it intends to revise the boundaries of that area of Malta that may be developed can be read in one of two ways. The opposition has condemned it as an attempt to bribe voters on a massive scale. The government insists this is a tidying up exercise, involving not much land, to do with issues pending since 1988 (and so declared at the time and intermittently since).

Nothing yet has been decided. The issue is still open for public consultation. The proposed new boundaries may be viewed on the Ministry of the Environment's website. But there is no doubt that, whatever the intentions with which the government is setting out, it is going to come under intense pressure, behind the scenes, from both large developers and small property owners, to have the new proposed boundaries include their properties. There is a lot of money at stake, an election is round the corner, and the governing Nationalist Party, whether at the top or at its grassroots, will acutely feel the pressure of threats of withheld votes.

Given the pressure, it will be Dr Gonzi himself who will have to decide whether to hold firm to the tidying up exercise, or to relax the criteria so as to change the nature of the exercise entirely. But if he chooses the latter, he will be throwing away everything he has worked for over the past two years.

During this time, he has transformed himself, in the public's perception, from Eddie Fenech Adami's clone to his own man: the Prime Minister as project manager - delving into details, coordinating, attempting to institutionalise long-term thinking in a country that had previously been unable to think beyond the next cliff-edge facing it.

But all this will be thrown away if the new development zones significantly change the balance between the current urbanised area of Malta and that area lying outside the development zone. All talk of a greener Malta will sound hollow. So will all talk of competitiveness - seeing the blow it will deal the attractiveness of Malta as a tourist destination. So will all talk about building up a knowledge economy, as the continuing reliance on property development and speculation would show.

Whatever is said now, the proof of the government's intentions will be seen when the boundaries are finally decided. Given that the opposition will continue to criticise whatever decision is taken, is there a general criterion that can help us decide for ourselves whether the government would have remained true to its original stated intentions?

I think there is. It concerns the percentage of land that will, in the event, be subsumed within the development zone.

Minister Ninu Zammit, in a statement released on Monday to rebut opposition allegations that he was personally going to profit from the re-zoning, said that the land to be brought within the development zone will be the equivalent of some 2.5 per cent of Malta's current development zone; that would be, I figure, roughly around 0.6 per cent of the entire area of Malta. Now, Minister Zammit is not the minister responsible for this re-zoning process; George Pullicino is, and to my knowledge this percentile has yet to be officially confirmed. But if it is confirmed as a figure, it would be a strong indication that the government is honestly trying to tidy up loose ends in the current boundaries.

Its case would be further strengthened if it turned out that this percentile did not include only unbuilt land. If it also included, say, buildings that had already gone up (prior to 1988), roads, and spaces already committed as public spaces (and therefore not possible to develop), it would mean that the actual area being released for development would be even smaller than that 0.6 per cent.

This general criterion cannot resolve allegations to do with the inclusion (or exclusion) of this or that particular plot of land - to profit (or spite) this or that individual. That would need to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. But the percentile criterion would enable us to grasp the general significance of the exercise.

If it involves rather less than one per cent of the total area of Malta and Gozo, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the general balance between urbanisation and unbuilt areas is not being disturbed. It would indeed mean that this balance is going to be safeguarded till 2016 - which is how long the new development zone will remain valid.

If, on the other hand, the new development zone turns out to be enlarged by significantly more than its current size - say, by five or six per cent (or around 1.5 per cent of the country's total area) - then we would be free to draw three conclusions. First, that the opposition was right in saying that the exercise was not what it was said to be. Second, that the Nationalist Party leadership lost its nerve and caved in to popular pressure, sacrificing national strategy for partisan gain. Third, that Dr Gonzi was no longer credible as a national leader with a long-term vision for Malta.

But we are not there yet. If the government does essentially stick to tidying up the boundaries, we would have to recognise the great temptation - and grassroots pressure - resisted. Dr Gonzi would emerge a stronger, more authoritative figure. He would, indeed, have begun to make the second key transformation, in public perception, of his political career: from the project manager to the conviction politician.

ranierfsadni@europe.com