Reforming the MCESD

Life has always been about change. Modern life with its broader and deeper perspectives, makes adapting to and managing change a more strenuous process. Given the pace of change, the risk emerges that it becomes an end in itself, rather than a way of ameliorating our lives and our society.

Ever since Malta joined the EU, our government has been obliged to force through an extensive institutional and public enterprise reform programme. It had to make good for the precious time lost in the pre-accession drive. In the hurry, the government is often losing sight of why the reform is needed, what it should entail and how to go about implementing it. Priority is still being given to political expediency rather than socio-economic considerations. The proposed reform of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD) is a case in point.

Barely five years ago, our Parliament legislated the setting up of the MCESD. The council had been operating as a non-statutory body since 1989. For a while it had been instrumental in getting the social partners to agree on cost of living increases. Then it became a talking shop. In our country even this had its usefulness. It offered the opportunity to the social partners to meet, share views and socialise on a regular basis. Tacitly, they acknowledged the constraints within which the other partners had to operate. The government itself expected little more from the council but for it to rubber stamp the less popular decisions which the government was being forced to make.

With legislation, the name of the council was changed. Rightly, the social dimension was added. The economy should be at the service of society, and the bond between the two is becoming increasingly firm. The Prime Minister assumed direct responsibility for the proper functioning of the council. However, little else changed.

Inevitably, the results have been disappointing. The government's efforts to have its decisions sweetened through the support of the social partners continued to fail miserably. There was no effort to give new direction to the council, to give it a more participatory and substantial role. And the government was not consistent in its talk. In public it continued to chant how well the economy is doing; in private harp on the need for more competitiveness sive higher taxation and lower employment benefits.

The MCESD's failure to come up with some sort of a social pact in 2004 must have convinced the government that it was time to change tactics and reform that which had just been reformed. A new way has to be found as to how the MCESD is functioning. There is talk about introducing majority voting. This is sheer nonsense so long as the role of the council remains purely cosmetic, "a consultative and advisory body".

The decision-making process has always been with the government. Majority voting within the council could help the government win some political points but will fail miserably in promulgating the new culture of trust, transparency and accountability that is necessary for the MCESD to function properly.

The government's role should be to facilitate and broker consensus building. The government should forget its position of command and stimulate a culture of negotiation between the other partners. It is preposterous to expect that during the council meetings the social partners will cut themselves off from reality, from their grassroots, to put on the robe of the common good. Conflicting or contrasting positions need to be exposed, leading to a bargaining process, whereby all partners win and lose something. This is a more sophisticated way of public policymaking, which, despite all the talk about our country's political development, is still largely beyond our reach.

For the MCESD to function properly it also needs to develop a "knowledge" capability. In other words, it cannot continue to rely solely on government sources for its information and technical analysis. In our society there is a glaring absence of research and analysis by autonomous bodies. The council should have a strong, professional executive branch that should report directly to Parliament not the Prime Minister.

The tragedy about all this is the real reform of the MCED had already started. When the Labour government took office in 1996, it was decided to let it function under the able chairmanship of Albert Mizzi. It was to be supported by a strong technical team. This led to the setting up of the Forum For A Better Economy. The forum and the MCED were entrusted with the preparation of a strategic economic plan for our country. Some months later the White Paper Value 2000 - Focusing Resources For Superior Competition was published. I had done much of the coordination work; it met wide consent. Even the vibes coming from Nationalist quarters were positive. Then, in 1998, there was a change in government. The forum and its White Paper passed into oblivion. The not-done-by-us syndrome triumphed once again.

The forum experience was lost to be replaced by nothingness.

For the good of our country let us hope that our politicians stop paying lip service to reform. Malta needs a strong economic and social council.

fms18@maltanet.net