A new economy, a new style of politics

It is reasonable to assume that the G20 summit recently held in Washington DC will lead to a new economic order - a new Bretton Woods. It would, therefore, be appropriate and fitting if "the way we conduct politics" also followed suit. From an international perspective, this means more multilateral co-operation in the classical liberal sense, whereas from a local perspective it means a re-thinking of how we conduct our democratic politics.

The western world has for a long time practiced democratic politics through ideologically based competition. This leads to an "us versus them" mindset and more worryingly always restricts our options. True, in the last 20 years, there has been a massive shift to centrist politics, perhaps best typified by Blarism, but political parties still strive to carve out their patch, left-or-right of centre, and defend it at all costs ("you are wrong, I am right!").This is old hat and needs to change if progress is to be registered at the same speed of change of the world economy in the 21st century.

We can learn a lot from the business world in this regard. Important decisions which determine the future of a business such as the appointment of a CEO or a senior manager are predominantly always based on the candidate's expertise, professional experience and proven track record.

In contrast, we allow the democratic political process to restrict our options or decisions of who should lead our country with ideologically dominated politics (left vs. right). Business leaders are not assessed according to the ideology that they support or profess. No, the CEO is free to choose whatever management style or business model he/she deems fit for the situation and is judged by results. The same practical approach should apply to politics i.e. a leader of a party should not be restricted by a political ideology and must be allowed to adopt whatever he/she deems fit and appropriate in the given situation.

True, the essence of politics is the struggle of opposing views and policies but it is clear that there is universal acceptance in Malta that its people subscribe to a free market economy, the protection and promotion of individual freedom, individual property rights and limited government (the stepchildren of classic liberalism).

Yet we also seem to subscribe to the regulation of the free market so as to protect the consumer, worker and to ensure fair competition, government subsidised education and health, the principle of social justice, environmental protection and the promotion of civil liberties, civil rights and social rights (the stepchildren of social democracy). We also seem to be in favour of trade liberalisation, market deregulation, privatisation of state enterprises, low taxation regimes and fiscal policy discipline (the stepchildren of neo-liberalism).

The point I am trying to make is that the old politics of ideological adversary no longer makes sense. What I would argue the voter is looking for is actually leadership, the quality of the management team supporting such leadership and the ability of a political party to conceptualise a long term vision for Malta, irrespective of ideology, which resonates with the people.

In conclusion, the electorate knows what it wants and it is up to the political parties to creatively and honestly come up with real and effective ways of realising peoples' dreams and aspirations even if they have to learn from the other party's political ideology. This is not to say that the new politics should turn democratic politics into a neutered, ideologically void competition game, but merely to highlight the fact that the "winning-criteria" in general elections should be the quality of leadership more than anything else. The business world offers us a lot of lessons in this regard and we would all do well to ditch ideologically controlled mindsets in favour of a business-based leadership that delivers results.

• Mr Fenech is a business consultant at Fenci Consulting