MCESD and civil society

Among the many proposals that have emerged from various quarters regarding the reform of the powers and composition of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD), some have suggested the possibility of giving a greater voice to civil society through more active and direct participation in the work of the council.

As things stand today, the law which establishes the MCESD restricts membership of the council to the social partners, defined as representatives of employers' and employees' associations together with representatives of select ministries. The same law provides for the setting up of a Civil Society Committee within the MCESD, which is to be consulted by the council, at its own discretion, on those issues which the council may decide to refer to it. In practice, the Civil Society Committee - bar a few, very rare exceptions - has been completely sidelined.

The proposal to include civil society representatives on the MCESD should not be considered from the myopic lens of the balance of power, especially when one considers that the MCESD does not have an executive role but rather advises the government, through the Prime Minister, on issues relating to sustainable national economic and social development. As a matter of principle, there is no necessary and sufficient reason why civil society organisations should be barred from partaking in this role together with employers' associations and trade unions. After all, many CSOs de facto play an important role in the country's social and economic well-being.

It should suffice to consider the composition of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), the MCESD's counterpart and interlocutor at EU level. The EESC fulfils an advisory and consultative function in respect of larger executive and legislative EU institutions such as the Council, the Commission and the Parliament. Its membership is divided into three groups, each representing employers' associations, employees' associations and civil society respectively.

The third group, known as the "mixed group", represents a wide range of categories such as the professions, small businesses, cooperatives and non-profit associations, consumer organisations, environmental organisations, persons with disabilities, youth, women, the academic community and other non-governmental organisations. This composition is more or less analogous to the present composition of the MCESD's civil society committee. Its members, however, are not seen as second-rate participants, as in the case of the Maltese scenario. It is also worth noting that while the European Union recognises and formalises its relation to civil society by establishing its institutional role, Maltese legislation grants such recognition in a ridiculously half-baked manner.

According to media reports, the proposal of including civil society representatives within the council (thus effectively abolishing or altering the structure of the Civil Society Committee as it stands today) enjoys the support of trade unions. Employers' associations, on the other hand, are reported to have taken a rather lukewarm position in this regard. The position of the government and the opposition remains rather ambiguous.

It would be useful to have a clear statement by the political parties on this matter.

One could then examine the extent to which they are prepared to concretise their openness to civil society beyond the lip-service paid during one-off cordial meetings usually held as part of some campaign or other. In a proper democratic setting, dialogue with civil society (which has become somewhat of a cliché) remains vexed until it is adequately structured.