Editorial

Judging by what the Labour leader Alfred Sant says and writes, it would seem that, like the caravan medicine man, he has a miracle cure to all of Malta's ills. With the Nationalists having been in power for so long, and disenchantment growing over the way they have tackled a number of problems, Labour may think it is now only a matter of months before they will be back in the saddle to pick up from where they had left off, unexpectedly and so ungracefully, in 1998. The problem is that Labour may come up against another rude shock if in the time left before the election they do not come down to earth and speak to the electorate in a language understood by all.

Resorting to such catchy slogans as new beginning and new vision will not work. Nor will any bombastic assessment of the island's prospects under Labour. A recent contribution to this newspaper by the Labour leader is, in part, a classic example of first-class political rhetoric. After tearing apart the Nationalists' concept of vision, and arguing that in all cases they had no serious plan to underpin the launching of large projects, he bravely sets out to lay his party's vision.

This is how he puts it: "Of course, political action must be driven by a vision. The one Labour has been promoting for the past many years is of a Malta that is modern and socially just. A Malta that is able to stand on her own two feet and, on that basis, able to compete with the rest of the free world, in Europe and the Mediterranean, and with the rest of the West and of the world. Malta must do so by way of economic efficiency, while ensuring full transparency and accountability".

Fine, all political parties work out a vision, but, pray, is Labour's vision of a Malta that is modern and socially just any different to that of any other party, past or present? What particularly jars in the Labour leader's vision is "a Malta... able to compete with the rest of the free world, in Europe and the Mediterranean, and with the rest of the West and of the world". The idea, as spelt out, is breathtaking, shorn of realism.

To be credible, the statement would have to be broken down and reduced to what the party essentially wants to mean, which is probably that in some sectors, such as financial services, for example, the island could well make headway and compete with others, as it is doing at present. But in an island whose economy is as fragile as Malta's, unsupported by any physical resources, dishing out such tantalising economic visions could lead to the nurturing of unrealistic objectives. This is neither reasonable nor helpful in the efforts to raise the rhythm of economic growth.

There are, of course, other areas besides financial services where Malta can well make it - information and communications technology, pharmaceuticals, and the making of other goods having a high value-added content, as well as tourism. Malta is a pioneer in none of these lines, and competition for new investment is fierce, but headway has been made and the planned SmartCity project, for instance, is by far a good example of the progress that could be registered in the drive to take the island into a new, modern phase of manufacturing.

The point being made here is that, while it makes sense for political action to be driven by a vision, those propelling such vision would have to ensure that they do not lose sight of realism.