The Nationalist Party recently issued another policy document titled “A better quality of life for you. Proposals on the environment.” The operative word in the title is “you” who has the right to “a better quality of life”. The proposals referred to in the sub-title indicate the way in which the environment can provide this better quality of life.

This is a very good way to approach the subject as it can perhaps help people realise why the environment should be of direct interest to them. There are still many who think that as long as they have enough money in their pockets the environment should be ranked lower on the personal and national agenda. The emphasis of the PN document shows that these two important needs are not in competition. On the contrary, one depends on the other. An exploited environment is not only bad for your health but also for the country’s economy, among other things.

The document is very well written, researched and presented. The lead author, Simone Vella Leniker, should be congratulated. Its 171 concrete proposals encompass a plethora of topics varying from environmental innovation to public administration, water management to good governance, green economy to biodiversity.

Many of the subjects raised are too technical for me. But I will comment on the four-pronged dynamic vision of politics that underpins the same document.

The first dimension is that politics is about caring for our common home. Simon Busuttil uses the metaphor in the introduction. But it is then expanded in Chapter 5 where we are asked to be the “guardians” of our common home.

Pope Francis had adopted this metaphor in his encyclical letter about the environment. It is dynamically opposed to right-wing metaphors such as “resource”, “property” or an “adversary to be conquered”. Those metaphors treat the environment as something to be exploited mostly for financial reasons. “Home”, unlike “property”, does not tap into greed and possessiveness. On the contrary it evokes “relationship” and “solidarity”. A home is more than just a physical place since the bond between those who live in it are also emotional. A home is something inherently worth maintaining and protecting.

A home is generally a place one wants to take long-term care of. Similarly, in our common home, the second dimension of politics should be concerned with long-term visions instead of exercises in short-termism.

A home built only on the monetary dimension of communal living, however important that may be, is bound to implode

Politics is about the realisation that today can be better only if we plan for tomorrow. The PN document states that it wants to move away from the “current haphazard, self-serving and shortsighted approach to development – from ODZ development to our common skyline – with a more cohesive, transparent and forward-looking plan.”

In line with this long-term approach to politics the document proposes an Agenda 2050. Politics that just take us from one election to another should be considered passé.

A home built only on the monetary dimension of communal living, however important that may be, is bound to implode. Similarly, the third dimension worthy of our common home is politics not considered as just (or mainly) a driver for economic development.

Politics is a holistic exercise aimed at enhancing the quality of life of all, particularly the most vulnerable in society. This is the reason why the PN document is proposing to place the environment “at the centre of our decisions and ensure that our policies in all sectors are guided by the primary target of improving the quality of life for all citizens”.

The improvement of the quality of life is not guaranteed simply by economic develop­ment. Such a development satisfies important needs, but they are located at the lower end of the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Our society should not concentrate on a race to the bottom. It should go beyond the satisfaction of economic needs and move towards the satisfaction of higher needs that ennoble our humanity and enhance our dignity. For example, the environment understood in its widest meaning.

A home where the few impose themselves on the many is not a home. Therefore, the fourth dimension of the management of our common home through politics should not be about one party imposing its will on another party.

Politics is about working together. The PN document promises that “our policy will involve the whole of society, including all public, private and civil sectors, thus ensuring that its implementation will be meaningful for all persons, and particularly the more vulnerable sectors of society”.

Politics should be at the service of “the whole of society” not at the service of a privi­leged clique of big-moneyed bullies or corrupt insiders. Żonqor, Mrieħel and Sliema high-rises and the Paceville master plan are just a few manifest examples of how our common home should not be managed.

One can say that all this sounds utopic, and perhaps it is. As all of us dream about enhancing our family home, political parties should not shy away from proposing a vision for the embellishment of our common home. Unfortunately, many, and generally for good reason, have become cynical of politics and pre-electoral assurances.

The greatest challenge that the PN has is not whether this vision is good and objectively doable but whether it will succeed in persuading people that past mistakes need not be repeated tomorrow. The jury is still out on that one.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.