Last Saturday, Lord Maurice Glasman delivered a lecture at the Catholic Institute in Floriana as part of the course organised by the Pastoral Formation Institute and the local Chapter of the Centesimus Annus Pro Pontifice Foundation. The title of the course was ‘The call to public life – Politics and the common good’.
The lecture of Lord Glasman actually focused on ‘politics of the common good’. The thrust of his concept is founded on the idea that we need to restore humanity within the economy which cannot be subjected either to uncontrolled market forces or state capitalism.
The title of this week’s contribution is in fact borrowed from another lecture delivered by Lord Glasman in Rome last year. We seem to be constantly faced with ‘either/or’ and ‘take it or leave it’ situations.
An economic strategy of fiscal austerity is seen to harm prospects of economic growth and the other way round. Capital and labour cannot work together as factors of production to which one attaches equal importance. Market forces cannot be controlled unless one adopts extreme socialist policies. The lack of state control implies a breakdown of society.
Thus the two extremes are being imposed upon us with no effort to find the common ground. On the other hand, it is possible to find a balance between fiscal austerity and economic growth, between capital and labour, between the need to allow the market forces to operate and the need to have such forces controlled by the forces of society. The lack of state capitalism does not have to mean that society becomes dominated by market forces.
In effect, both extreme positions destroy economic freedom and participation. Using Pope Francis’s words, both lead to an “economy that excludes persons”.
There must be a solution to the apparent conflict between opposing forces and interests. The paradox may be eliminated if we place the human being at the centre of our economic decisions
Hence the politics of the common good means the ability to reconcile economic forces that have, so far, been considered as enemies of each other.
Is this at all possible in a country like Malta? Is there a different way of doing business for companies? Can we balance the budget while still achieving economic growth? Can employees take an active role in the growth of a company? How does one enable the market to operate and the private sector to thrive while still achieving social cohesion?
A great deal depends on how each and every one of us interprets one’s role in the economy. There are many who think that in the economic sphere, there is a winner and a loser and the winner takes it all. This thinking stems from the fact that we are accustomed to such a situation in the political sphere. However, it does not necessarily have to be the case. A win-win situation is possible.
Let me take one example – the conflict between capital and labour, which very oftenreflects itself in a conflict between management and employees. A win-lose situation would mean that it is not possible to achieve a balance between human relationships at work and business results, which we know is not the case.
On the other hand, a win-win situation would mean that employees cannot be allowed to stay in a comfort zone but should move into a learning zone.
By definition, a growing company is a changing company and change can only happen if employees are provided with opportunities for development.
Another area we could look at is the one of social benefits. The welfare system is intended to provide a safety net for those who are more vulnerable in society.
On the other hand, it is known that such a system has led to families, for successive generations, living off social benefits because there was no incentive for them to have a paid job.
This leads to honest taxpayers asking for a reduction in social benefits, at the risk of making vulnerable persons even more vulnerable. However, a total rethink of Malta’s welfare system would ensure that benefits are given to those who really need them in today’s society.
What all this leads to is the conviction that there must be a solution to the apparent conflict between opposing forces and interests. The paradox may be eliminated if we place the human being at the centre of our economic decisions.