There are some words which are simply alien to the Maltese culture: ‘public cleanliness’; ‘courtesy’; ‘open-mindedness’; ‘civic pride’; ‘planning’; ‘objectivity’ and many others. Readers will add their own favourites to the list.

But there is one word that has been missing ever since Malta attained independence. That word is ‘vision’.

Except for a brief period under Eddie Fenech Adami when there was a clear vision for Malta to join the European Union, successive governments, before and since, have been bereft of any plan that looked beyond the five-year horizon of the next election.

It is as though the only objective of politics in Malta is to win and retain power at all costs. For leaders to keep their political snouts in the trough and the devil take the hindmost. No consideration of where the country wants to go, or the consequences of actions being taken now for future generations.

But, conversely, the overriding lesson of history is that countries that have succeeded over time have invested in developing a long-term vision. They have created the institutions to translate long-term visions into reality, supporting them and seeing them through.

Countries with higher growth rates in recent decades and a better quality of life had a national strategic vision

This is where, for example, Singapore – which attained independence at the same time as we – has won hands down over Malta. While Singapore’s authoritarian capitalism is unattractive and restrictive of personal liberty, it is undoubtedly efficient and effective.

The challenge for Malta is to find a way of injecting its historic liberal democracy – which long pre-dates independence – with a large dose of Singaporean order, forward planning and discipline.

Malta is a good example of a country that has all the institutions of democracy in place, but has failed to provide a fully functioning State governed by the rule of law and administered through autonomous, efficient meritocratic bureaucracies.

It did once have an outstanding civil service, but this fell into a 16-year black hole between 1971 and 1987. Efforts to revive it since then have been patchy. Like many other countries – Greece and Italy are good examples – it has led to the institutions of the state being hijacked by politicians and corrupted.

Singapore, with its long-term vision, created and overseen by a great leader, Lee Kuan Yew, has had vision in spades. Malta has not.

All the evidence points in one direction. Countries with higher growth rates in recent decades and a better quality of life had a national strategic vision. Economic development is more successful when there is a greater commitment on the part of all stakeholders in the community (politicians, the public and private sector, trade unions, NGOs and ordinary citizens) to promote a national strategic vision.

A national vision is the key to bridging the long and the short term. Malta’s focus on the short term leads to strategic short-sightedness. Actions which only respond to the short-term political exigencies invariably do not coincide with the priorities needed to build the vision for a country and develop it.

(I use the word ‘develop’ here in a constructive way, not in the way Malta’s construction developers understand it.)

A shared national vision requires all stakeholders to commit to the reforms required for its implementation. Changes to promote development are achieved through actions in the short term. But it is the cumulative effect of these short-term actions within an over-arching grand plan that are needed to build the national vision. If there isn’t an appropriate balance between short-term actions and long-term vision, it will never become reality.

There will not always be unanimity among stakeholders. Differences between sectors of society will have to be accommodated and arrangements made to compensate those who, at least in the short term, stand to lose in relative terms. Countries that manage to implement their visions have institutional procedures to bridge the present with the future.

How should Malta set about achieving a national vision? The first requirement is a shared diagnosis of the situation and the challenges involved. Agreements become more viable when they are the product of a shared vision. The national vision should be based on this analysis. The quest for agreement is not designed to achieve utopian unanimity about the actions required, but agreement about the reforms essential to pursue it.

However, it is not enough to agree on the main goals for the country. The priorities and the methods for advancing towards that shared vision must also be identified. It must be holistic, balanced and well planned, reflecting the multiplicity of interests and challenges existing in any society. Progress towards a shared vision is necessarily achieved in stages. It is these partial advances that gradually build trust between stakeholders.

It is crucial to set priorities reflecting the fact that reforms should occur in a planned sequence. The vision must not only define what is to be done, but also how and when, clearly identifying the results that must be achieved.

It is a multifaceted process which builds on participation and the active commitment of all the stakeholders. It is also a confidence-building process designed to ensure that collaboration becomes the mainstay of the country’s transformation into the long-term vision envisaged.

Shared values and principles are crucial to success. It is as much a cultural process in which each stakeholder transcends personal interest while not ignoring it, in order to satisfy the collective objective to build the nation. It is a binding process which is the basis of democratic institutions. It is also a social process, giving civic organisations an outlet for participation and active support.

Building a national vision does not have a unique format, but must be adapted to the country’s situation. The vision may be explicit or tacit. It may be binding on political stakeholders or on representatives of social organisations. The more formal, binding and representative the vision-building process, the more effective and lasting it will be.

It is most important for the private sector – the engine of Malta’s growth – to coalesce around a common strategy and to engage fully in the public dialogue. Various sectors – the service industry, manufacturing, commerce, construction, financial services – sometimes have conflicting agendas and priorities. Dialogue between the different organisations can help define a common agenda for growth and social development.

National development is a process in which society is transformed, its capacity and human capital are built and its institutions are changed. A vision of where Malta wishes to be 15 or 20 years from now is a prerequisite for development.

A development strategy is, above all, a transformation process within an overall vision of where we wish the country to go. It addresses the obstacles to change and identifies the reforms essential toits achievement.

It is vitally important to have a national vision in the era of globalisation, when countries’ competitive advantages cannot be taken for granted and when the transformations needed are structural and hence long-term.

The future is not built by looking in the rear view mirror, but by looking forward. The path to Malta’s progress can only begin when there is a clear national vision and the combined efforts of all Malta’s stakeholders can be galvanised into supporting similar long-term aims.

Next week, I propose to discuss what Malta’s “Vision 2035” might focus on and how it should be approached.