Although the next general election need not take place for another 11 months, the country is already in electioneering mode. Loose talk has suggested that the PN campaign will "gradually" build up once the independence celebrations are past. The two big parties say they are ready to charge off the starting block the moment the Prime Minister fires the gun.
The prevailing wind is more political than usual. The predominant language is that of division. Not only is there no apparent care for the damage all this premature nonsense can inflict upon the economy, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to put economic performance on hold.
Nationalist spokespersons have taken to predicting that if there were a change of government, the economy would grind to a halt.
The party general secretary girdled himself as an economic forecaster and made that prediction in the context of an angry effort to ward off the capital made by Labour out over his going on holiday with a contractor friend.
The economy would not normally be affected by silly singing of you were sailing and unfurled sails in the sunset. Economic operators understand the games politicians play and can tell spin from the wind picking up to signal a storm. It is another matter when the spin is in fact based on warnings that a storm is brewing.
Such spin creates uncertainty. And if there is anything economic operators are wary of and can do without, that is uncertainty. Uncertainty, unlike risk, cannot be measured. Very often operators react to it by distancing themselves from taking decisions. Investment is put on hold. Should that start happening, contradicting the government's own strategy, it would be a cruel paradox. It would also be totally unnecessary.
There is blatantly obvious political division in the country. It is apparent in every word uttered by the political class, in every single one of its actions. Political division is so deep that it would be laughable, if it were not so pitiable.
The major political parties differ on practically everything - except for one thing. Whatever the political class may say, there is no economic divide. There is a commitment to an open economy. There are not even clear differences about how the fruit of economic growth should be distributed. There is no ideology at play: No clash between a commitment to state involvement and a private-dominated economy.
There is, rather, a common determination to encourage private direct investment, both domestic as well as foreign. There is agreement that the primary focus has to be placed on furthering a knowledge-based economy. The need to encourage more females to become gainfully occupied is mutually recognised. So is the desirability to help the self-employed and to meaningfully encourage operators of micro-enterprises.
The situation of the agriculture and the fishing industry is appreciated by one and all as the sectors attempt to adjust to the realities of the EU. And membership of the union is now taken for granted; differences relate to how well one side or the other would maximise the benefits and minimise the negatives of membership. Education of the right type is seen by one and all as the key to the future.
The picture painted above is not a photo of the way the political parties behave in regard to each of the sectors mentioned. The parties do their utmost to project the impression that their stand is differentiated from that of the other. After all, politics, like the supply of goods and services, also depends on differentiation in a particular market. Politicians do not promise continuity - they sell the idea of change.
By doing that, politicians delineate areas where they will compete to bring about improvement. Which is what democratic clash and contrast is all about, providing there is no recourse to the dangerous ploy of implicitly encouraging economic operators to hold back initiatives should "the other lot" get in.
Though politicians do not preach continuity there are areas where it is not only a must but is assured. The financial sector is one such area. The sector is based on the consensus reached and activated in 1995. In that year a package of legislation was passed with the cooperation of both the Nationalist government and the Labour opposition. The package formed the basis upon which the financial industry was fashioned. Legislation has been continuously updated, not least to take into account Malta's accession to the EU.
The consensus held when there was a change of government in 1996, and again when there was change in the other direction in 1998. It remains in force and there can be no doubt that it will continue to hold should the next general election bring about another change.
As the parties and their politicians gear up for the combat ahead, neither side has made any suggestion that it would change its stance over the financial sectors.
Politics may seem to be a looney game but there is also method in its madness.
The prevailing wind is more political than usual. The predominant language is that of division. Not only is there no apparent care for the damage all this premature nonsense can inflict upon the economy, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to put economic performance on hold.
Nationalist spokespersons have taken to predicting that if there were a change of government, the economy would grind to a halt.
The party general secretary girdled himself as an economic forecaster and made that prediction in the context of an angry effort to ward off the capital made by Labour out over his going on holiday with a contractor friend.
The economy would not normally be affected by silly singing of you were sailing and unfurled sails in the sunset. Economic operators understand the games politicians play and can tell spin from the wind picking up to signal a storm. It is another matter when the spin is in fact based on warnings that a storm is brewing.
Such spin creates uncertainty. And if there is anything economic operators are wary of and can do without, that is uncertainty. Uncertainty, unlike risk, cannot be measured. Very often operators react to it by distancing themselves from taking decisions. Investment is put on hold. Should that start happening, contradicting the government's own strategy, it would be a cruel paradox. It would also be totally unnecessary.
There is blatantly obvious political division in the country. It is apparent in every word uttered by the political class, in every single one of its actions. Political division is so deep that it would be laughable, if it were not so pitiable.
The major political parties differ on practically everything - except for one thing. Whatever the political class may say, there is no economic divide. There is a commitment to an open economy. There are not even clear differences about how the fruit of economic growth should be distributed. There is no ideology at play: No clash between a commitment to state involvement and a private-dominated economy.
There is, rather, a common determination to encourage private direct investment, both domestic as well as foreign. There is agreement that the primary focus has to be placed on furthering a knowledge-based economy. The need to encourage more females to become gainfully occupied is mutually recognised. So is the desirability to help the self-employed and to meaningfully encourage operators of micro-enterprises.
The situation of the agriculture and the fishing industry is appreciated by one and all as the sectors attempt to adjust to the realities of the EU. And membership of the union is now taken for granted; differences relate to how well one side or the other would maximise the benefits and minimise the negatives of membership. Education of the right type is seen by one and all as the key to the future.
The picture painted above is not a photo of the way the political parties behave in regard to each of the sectors mentioned. The parties do their utmost to project the impression that their stand is differentiated from that of the other. After all, politics, like the supply of goods and services, also depends on differentiation in a particular market. Politicians do not promise continuity - they sell the idea of change.
By doing that, politicians delineate areas where they will compete to bring about improvement. Which is what democratic clash and contrast is all about, providing there is no recourse to the dangerous ploy of implicitly encouraging economic operators to hold back initiatives should "the other lot" get in.
Though politicians do not preach continuity there are areas where it is not only a must but is assured. The financial sector is one such area. The sector is based on the consensus reached and activated in 1995. In that year a package of legislation was passed with the cooperation of both the Nationalist government and the Labour opposition. The package formed the basis upon which the financial industry was fashioned. Legislation has been continuously updated, not least to take into account Malta's accession to the EU.
The consensus held when there was a change of government in 1996, and again when there was change in the other direction in 1998. It remains in force and there can be no doubt that it will continue to hold should the next general election bring about another change.
As the parties and their politicians gear up for the combat ahead, neither side has made any suggestion that it would change its stance over the financial sectors.
Politics may seem to be a looney game but there is also method in its madness.