I refer to Michael Falzon’s column ‘Giving left-wingers the jitters’ (The Sunday Times of Malta, November 23).

Though being a member of ‘The Group of 26’ to which the author refers, I shall only speak on my behalf since the group is not a formal organisation.

Falzon claims that the government is keeping “aloof from ideologically inspired left-wing policies in order [among other things] to attain economic success”.

This falsely suggests that there are policies that are ideologically inspired and others that are ideologically innocent.

In a society that consists of different classes/groups with interests that are frequently conflicting, nothing is innocent, least of all political/economic policies.

These generally suit the interests of some groups/classes but not of others. Suggesting that some policies are ideologically neutral will help dominant groups consolidate their hegemony.

Falzon’s comment also links the debunking of left-wing policies to economic success. Not only is the phrase “economic success” not ideologically neutral, but even by the most capitalist of parameters (investment, production, deficit), it is not obvious that many economies are more successful today than when left-wing policies were implemented.

Falzon refers to people on welfare who make “more than ends meet”, adding that the notion of “pushing the needy to work rather than live on hand-outs” is anathema to us. Apart from failing to specify the percentage of those on welfare who abuse social services and from highlighting the economic costs of this, the remark illicitly attributes to us views we never proclaimed.

I myself have no objection with the needy working. However, for different reasons, not everyone is profitably employable and, as the late Lino Spiteri once wrote, it is impossible to have full employment in a capitalist economy. Hence, some will necessarily be unemployed no matter how enthusiastic they are about getting a job. Society can give these individuals a decent welfare or to leave them to their own devices. Furthermore, with the ridiculous minimum wage we have, it is not obvious that getting people employed will necessarily elevate them socially.

Falzon concludes by asking where Labour’s giving us the jitters leaves the PN. Assuming his claim regarding Labour is correct, the question should be where does this leave democracy?

Democracy is about having competing parties with different ideologies, values and visions of how society should be organised.

Having major parties adopting the same ideology and neo-liberal dogmas about the economy and diverging only on issues like divorce, abortion and civil rights would entail that democracy is dying a slow death without the demos being aware of this.

Democracy would be irremediably imploding.