MCESD reform

Thinking positively I would say it's better late than never. Our national council for economic and social development has been in existence for quite some time now but, unfortunately, it has not achieved the targets specified in its own mission statement. It was set up as a national institution to promote social dialogue but throughout the years it was transformed into an inept forum widely perceived as a talking shop, a parliament of constituted bodies or a rubber stamp for the government's unpopular measures!

It is absolutely about time to decide whether it shall be restructured in order to achieve the European standards of social dialogue or else to dismantle it altogether and revert to the idea of governmental paternalism where imposition and casual information would substitute effective consultation and sharing of responsibility.

According to recent press reports, the present members of the MCESD will be meeting in two days time, presumably in a papal conclave-like set up, to put forward their suggestions on how to implement the long-awaited reform within the council. The fact that all council members have accepted to undergo such a post mortem is a good sign as it demonstrates their willingness to identify the shortcomings in the council's modus operandi and propose tangible solutions.

However, all representatives on the council had realised that they cannot produce a sensible and effective operational plan unless they engage an independent moderator or a "special rapporteur". To a certain extent this implies they are unable to forfeit, on their own steam, their privileged status and to act in the national interest or in the collective interest of all social partners. Their protectionist approach is still evident in representing first and foremost their respective organisation's concerns with the consequence that their biased input could never result in an objective and fair deliberation on issues of national importance.

The main task which the council needs to address with urgency is the question of culture change. Initially this institution was meant to be an economic development advisory body. A few years ago, its raison d'etre was revised to incorporate the social aspects in addition to the economic scenario. Since then no major changes had been adopted and the MCESD proceedings were, by and large, kept at very low profile with no relevance to the prevailing economic and social conditions experienced by the ordinary citizen.

The MCESD has become more renowned for the marathon meetings leading to inconclusive outcomes and generating conflicting views among the social partners, as against their achievements in executing their consultative role through consensus building. It is still inconceivable how we managed to render this institution to the likes of any other time-wasting bureaucratic Gurdwara! The experiences of our counterparts in the Netherlands, Luxemburg and Ireland can teach us a lesson or two on how the social partners could work together to ensure better quality of life through social dialogue.

The composition of the council in relation to its current widespread representation of our society is also a cause for concern. The government side consists of few ministries' appointees together with the head of the civil service. They have no other option but to act according to their master's voice. It would make more sense should the government be represented by permanent officers who are granted a free hand to participate on the basis of their expertise and experience and independent of the "political" policies.

The trade unions and the employers' associations are numerically over exposed and their representation does not cover those who are not affiliated to their organisations. They have to allocate few of their chairs to the NGOs that should also form part of the core functional body of the MCESD. The back-up force consisting of the administrative structure of the council shall play a more prominent role in the preparatory workings of the council and in the presentation of technical reports, based on research and scientific studies, both for public consumption and in their capacity as advisers to the government.

It is understood by all parties that the role of the MCESD should not take the form of a decision-making body. Its consultative nature based on consensus shall remain its forte. But surely a debate will ensue as to whether this consensus is reached out of voluntary disposition by the social partners or through a majority voting system. Most of the present council members are arguing that important organisations and institutions, such as Parliament, the EU, the ILO, decide on the basis of majority voting and so ask why can't the MCESD adopt this system too. I would not agree with this suggestion for the simple reason that, unlike the MCESD, the institutions mentioned are all decision-making bodies. To my mind the voting system itself hinders the spirit of consensus building and could serve as a catalyst to instil friction among the social partners.

I would prefer to introduce the system of minority reporting. In cases where few members object to the final documentation it should be obligatory on their part to present their views in a separate report. However, the council report will be the one approved by the majority of the members at the council.

The MCESD reform is not a joke; it could blow up if not tackled properly; it could mean the downfall of our social dialogue mechanism at national level.

If the euro changeover task is a headache, reforming the MCESD is a severe form of migraine!

manuelmicallef@onvol.net