Tomorrow's tomorrow

Today's tomorrow is the future any reasonable person would expect. Tomorrow's tomorrow is the future that hits us out of the blue, the one we never imagined. When historians come to pass judgement on the electoral result of 2008, they will judge us on how, with our vote, we came to grips with both kinds of future. They both lie in wait for us.

When we voted in 2003, we expected the environment to take a more central place in our politics. We expected more power to devolve to civil society. We expected more institutionalised consultation. To a greater or lesser degree, that all came to pass.

But we never expected oil prices at $103 a barrel. I certainly never expected to discuss international cereal prices with the two elderly spinsters from whom I have been buying free-range chickens for the last 20 years.

Back in 2003, some of us expected an "invasion" of Sicilians from the north; it hardly occurred to anyone to point to massive irregular immigration from the south. Those preoccupied with the Sicilians had said the EU would be the problem; within two years they were complaining the EU was not being enough of a solution.

At the time, Xarabank found it difficult to find Maltese lesbians ready to come to the studio to discuss homosexuality on TV; today, lesbians are arguably the most prominent faces of the Malta Gay Rights Movement and are being assured, by no less than four political parties, of increased civil rights in the next legislature.

What do these developments say about the future we expect and the one we do not? They tell us that the future we expect has to do with outcomes we want, like better jobs and environmental regulation. The unexpected future changes the very processes that organise our lives - by making us price and generate energy differently, or changing the very conversation that take place on TV and carries over into manifestos.

To think about both kinds of future, we have to think about the only two candidates we have to be the next Prime Minister, Lawrence Gonzi and Alfred Sant. The buck and bang of our future will stop with them. And we must judge their ability to handle both kinds of future well against three criteria.

The first is how they ran their electoral campaign. One element is organisation: How they ran it is an indicator of their ability to run the country.

Another element is rhetoric: What balance did each campaign strike between the positive and the negative messages. Negative criticism may tell us something about the past; it does not tell us anything about how the future will be handled. For that, we need to look at the policy proposals, their detail. The second criterion concerns their capacity to handle the future we expect, to deliver the outcomes we want: Jobs, an education that liberates our children's talents, a better environment... a sustainable handling of rising oil prices. The key virtue here is responsibility - or, which of the two seems more clued up to what sensible people think is appropriate.

So, whose policies seem more wired into the international economic system and able to create more jobs? Which policies can tap into the two single most important drivers of economic development: sustainable ecological intervention twinned to the computational power of information and communication technologies, wired into our manufacturing, service, educational and health sectors?

And who will take best advantage of a window, open only till 2013, to spend the €855 million of our money in EU funds? Dr Gonzi has engaged in detail on this point. Dr Sant has been silent - perhaps crippled by the fact that if he admits that he does have €855 million to spend, he would appear to be contradicting his own 2003 claim that we would only get a net Lm1.5 million in EU funds.

The third criterion concerns Dr Gonzi's and Dr Sant's respective ability to deal with the unexpected on our behalf. We do not know what the US recession - possibly coming soon to a cinema near you - will mean for our region and our firms. The full implications of climate change are still unfolding. Oil prices are still rising.

What we need from a head of government in conditions of such uncertainty are two things.

One is reliable judgement when difficult decisions need to be taken.

On this score, in my book, Dr Gonzi scores high. He was on the right side of the EU debate. He got right the decision to join the euro when he did, too: it has and will affect the growth in our tourism and export industries. It is already seeing exponential growth in the financial sector.

I confess I am more hard pressed to find instances of prescient judgment by Dr Sant. But he says that that is because people like me have not looked hard enough at the disadvantages of EU membership, early euro entry, etc. You decide.

But to steer our way through uncertainty we also need a Prime Minister who can handle mistakes. In novel situations, he or his government is bound to make them. It will be important that whoever fills the post is responsive to criticism and allegations of mismanagement.

Both candidates are offering a Whistleblower Act. But in some ways, the respective solutions of the two candidates here are distinct. Dr Gonzi is promising a special public prosecutor with pro-active powers to investigate wrongdoing and an institutionalised role in formal social dialogue for environmental NGOs. Dr Sant is offering us himself: He will be the special investigator and, when he dialogues, he decides what is for the historians to decide and what is up to us.

Clear questions. Clear choices. Whatever you decide, the future will not be what it used to be.

ranierfsadni@europe.com