The business community is no doubt as weary of the electoral campaign as the rest of Malta, but it is still following with interest the unfolding drama with an eye on the future. I would say that the interest is not partisan. Like the rest of Malta, the business community is split in its political allegiances. Above that, however, are considerations which are common to all business people.

A business friendly government has to be tested by its results, not just its promises

They rest on a simple question – will the new government be good for the economy, whoever forms it? The broad answer will relate to the performance of the economy as a whole, to the resulting output over the coming years as reflected in the GDP.

The business community will have noted that both the main parties have been emphasising their objective to achieve the highest possible rate of economic growth.

That objective is shared by all. At the same time it is an objective which, in a post facto situation will have to be critically analysed to determine the sources and distribution of such growth.

The single indicator masks the underlying contributions to it. For instance there may be growth, but a sector like construction will continue to operate with halting steps. Or the other way round, although it is not likely that a new construction boom will motor growth at the expense of other areas.

Real growth had best come from a net increase in visible and invisible exports. Growth which comes from government expenditure is run-of-the-mill. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Likewise growth that comes from private consumption. Its high import content, though accounted for in the net contribution to the total aggregate, will require higher expenditure than in the case of visible and invisible exports.

Whichever segments it comes from real economic growth will be welcome. But to talk about it, to wish for it, is not enough. Definite steps have to be taken to encourage it. As such the business community has its own set of conditions which are specific to it, and which it will want to see met.

Put simply the community expects a positive influence from the government to help it operate in a more productive manner and so contribute to growth in a manner satisfactory to it. It will hope that the government does not hinder economic activity, rather than helping it.

For that not to happen there are three basic factors which need to be met. The Government must not destabilise private initiative with clumsy intervention. Its intervention as the pilot of the economy has to measured and calculated. The government must not burden the private sector with government-induced costs, or leave it burdened with costs which can be mitigated like, hopefully, water and electricity tariffs.

And finally the government must not stifle private enterprise with overwhelming bureaucracy.

There is nothing new in these three objectives. They are what the private sector continually presses for, and what every government promises. Nevertheless promises are rarely translated into effective action. The fact that these objectives are being promised by the main political parties cannot remove the need to be frank and say that not enough has been done in their regard.

The problem with political parties and more so with those that win the right to form the government is that they are unduly convinced by their own rhetoric. For instance the objective to reduce government bureaucracy has become a promise in every set of budget proposals put forward annually. It is to be found in the programmes the parties have placed before the electorate.

The promises are fancifully dressed in precise percentages. Nevertheless public bureaucracy continues to be suffocating. That statement is borne out by international comparative studies, which have recently not been very complimentary to Malta. But even without such reports the business community knows that bureaucracy is still a major problem. More public efficiency is required.

It is now commonly agreed that as much economic space as possible should be left to the private sector to exploit. Notwithstanding such agreement, the reach of the remaining public corporations and government investment in the economy remains unduly long, translating into inefficiencies which in a private sector depending on profit are quickly rooted out.

The remaining objective flows from the other two. The business community, while counting the days to March 9 like the rest of society, will be watching developments in the areas of interest to it with keen eyes. So it should. Its representatives should continue to speak out where the government of the day fails in meeting its expectations.

It would not be dabbling in politics by doing so. If it does not speak up it would be failing the sections it represents.

A business friendly government has to be tested by its results, not just its promises.