Preordained or planned?

Labour's general conference might be marginalised or ignored by the English language print media, but it shall mark a political tide line. Of course, we have been here before. In 1996 and 2003.

This time round, however, there are fewer diversionary issues to fudge the choice that has to be made. Do citizens want to continue with the inept, self-serving ethos that now dominates public management under the stewardship of PM Lawrence Gonzi? Or would they prefer an alternative team - Labour's team - which has experience, talent, ideas and new proposals regarding how to do things? Do families want to remain with the present policies that allow a select few to retain their grip on what gets done, while leaving the majority of middle class and lower income families to pay the bill... or would they prefer to attempt a more balanced way of creating opportunities?

Labour's project over the past few years has been to hammer out alternative priorities to what the Fenech Adami/Gonzi administrations plugged for. Then, we wanted to subject the available alternative choices to consultation and open discussion. It has been a long-winded process, of course, as some would say... but so what? The essence of effective democracy is to allow citizens to air their grievances and their preferred ways forward, before coming to a final decision. Is this messy? Yes. But so is democracy. The imperative remains: One must make sure that open discussion does not mean stultification. Consultation should not be used as a screen for indecision. There has to be a final position.

For long hours, my colleagues and I talked and reviewed matters with ordinary citizens both inside and outside Labour. We met representative experts and organisations in the different spheres for which we were honing the policies that are the backbone-agenda of this week's conference. On the family, youth affairs, the elderly, employment conditions, and gender equality, the initial papers submitted were subjected to critiques and exhaustive discussion. I do not regret one single minute of this long process, which, for the rest, was followed before in other plans we had been submitting to public scrutiny since mid-2004.

The point is that Labour has been steadily working towards a plan that reflects the living needs and aspirations of Maltese families. Nothing in such a plan had to be preordained; whatever we were to plan, needed to follow from real needs and aspirations.

Some might claim that Labour has taken this strategy to extremes. Up to the end, we have taken a leaf out of how British political parties organise their general conferences to set up "fringe meetings" during conference week - copied them actually - so as to continue widening discussion on the major themes that will be discussed in the plenary conference. Rather than being an "extreme" ploy, the fringe meeting approach emphasises the importance Labour will give in the coming months to the feedback that citizens provide regarding our policy proposals.

The decisions taken by Labour's general conference this week will not be once-for-ever solutions. They will be adjusted according to changing circumstances and according to how people recognise and understand the realities in which they live.

The past month has been one during which we witnessed the collapse of government's ham-fisted drive to project national statistics the way that supposedly fitted the government's public relations strategy. Dr Gonzi and his minions seemed reluctant to let the raw economic and social data tell the story as it is. Thereby, Labour's approach has gained increasing validity... for those of us who are prepared to say it as it is.

The coming weeks will no doubt see a rise in political polarisation. Those who will pretend that they are above the fray will nudge here and nudge there to convince people that the Gonzi administration has a viable policy. We will get lots of public relations initiatives to tell us how well things are going. Good luck to all of them.

At the end of the day, however, the people will judge by results. And they will also judge by the reasonableness, or otherwise, of the proposals made to them for future action. They will put such proposals to the test of how well they reflect their day-to-day experiences and expectations for the future. This is not a test that Labour wishes to avoid or fudge. The process of policy formulation through which we have progressed these last few years bears testimony to Labour's willingness to keep close to the people.

One can hardly say the same for the Gonzi administration. Only last week, the PN's general secretary admitted at a closed meeting of his party's executive that the cost of living and job opportunities top the agenda of people's concerns. In public, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues consistently and brazenly strive to give the opposite impression. They all want us to believe that things are going swimmingly.

No, plans for the future cannot be preordained. They have to take full account of how real people are living their real lives, for which massaged statistics have no relevance. That is not a handicap; it is a challenge. Moreover, it is not an excuse for not having national action plans. If we lack a plan, we would be adrift. Which, as a nation, is how we find ourselves at the moment.

Labour's general conference this week faces the challenge head on. We premise the need for a plan that sets the basis for a new beginning in social policy and in economic initiative.