The power of change

Change is the essence of democracy and the poll of 2008 is provoking an abundance of it.

The party which, four years ago, started the process of change by electing a new leader from another political generation ended winning this year's election. The parties that remained stuck to the political strategies and leaders of the 2003 election ended on the losing side.

The positive aspect of all this is that the power of change is now felt all over the political scene. The Nationalist Party has passed on to the next level of change by radically changing the face of government, leaning heavily on the next generation of politicians within the party. The other parties have finally started going in the same direction.

On first becoming Prime Minister, Lawrence Gonzi took charge of the momentum of change which entry into the European Union had to bring with it. The EU challenge is so big that one legislature is not enough to finish the process of integration and the electorate have extended the mandate of integration by another five years to a government fully committed to the process.

Labour never convinced the majority of the electorate that they were not still entrenched in the political agenda of the 2003 election.

This not only explains why Labour lost; it also explains why their leadership race has opened a Pandora's Box of pent-up frustrations within the MLP. This debate should have taken place five years ago.

Having lost five of the last six elections and, except for a brief period of two years, being the minority party since 1981 can only mean that the very credibility of the MLP as a viable political force is at stake. This means that the electorate will judge the process not only on personalities but, more so, by the policies behind such personalities.

Change must be built on realism and careful thought.

Together with the EU integration agenda, the new Gonzi government started tackling head-on hot domestic issues within hours of taking office. Much of the debate centres around the Mepa controversy. Care must be had not to miss the real problem behind the issue.

Mepa was created by the Nationalist government in 1992 with the clear intent of moving the politician away from the delicate issue of building permits and green areas. From the very beginning this created a contradiction because it gave rise to a dangerous grey area. Accountability in the eyes of the electorate became blurred because the voter wanted that the politicians be removed from the system while, at the same time, held the political system accountable for Mepa's failings.

We all have our nightmare stories of when we felt helpless before a faceless bureaucracy; it is at that stage we want the politician to act.

The general approval of the Prime Minister's decision to assume personal responsibility for Mepa is the clear manifestation of this state of affairs. After all is said and done, the voter prefers the politician to be in control than the bureaucrat. The Mepa question is true of many other authorities. However, none more than Mepa hits us so directly.

This is where the Mepa issue needs careful thought. The magic mix must be found of having authorities autonomous from the government of the day where policies are concerned but directly accountable to the government in terms of the transparency of the process. In this there can be no middle man.

In a democracy ultimate accountability must rest with the government of the day because it is the government which, every five years, has to answer for whatever the faceless bureaucracy does.

This makes it our challenge just as much as it's the government's.