This has been a long period of uncertainty for everyone, including the business community and other economic operators. Uncertainty is never good for any sector. Many people, therefore, breathed a sigh of relief that waiting for the general election was over, irrespective of its outcome.

There is a crying need for more public efficiency. Lack of it translates into financial costs which affect competitiveness

From the standpoint of economic agents the end of the period was not satisfactory. Monday’s unnecessary day of doubt leading many establishments to close shop simply meant a loss of output of goods and services.

Some of that loss will be made up with subsequent output.

Yet in many regards that comes at a cost.

It is more than time that Maltese society grew up to take such occasions in its stride.

While people wanted the uncertainty over, irrespective of the election outcome, the outcome will have consequences which need to be taken into account. A change in government means a change in personnel.

Such change can be very wide. Some people manning positions which require interchange with the business community (as well as other sectors) will either be moved or will have to implement changed policies.

New faces will be accompanied by new styles and will take time to get accustomed to. That applies from top positions down, although it is unlikely that there will be sweeping changes in the machinery of government, aside from the political administration.

The consequences can also be good, if the change in political administration is seen to be an opportunity for improvement in various spheres.

For example, as reiterated last week, operational efficiency is something everybody wants but not enough operators encounter in their relations with public enterprises. There is a crying need for more public efficiency. Lack of it translates into financial costs which affect competitiveness, as well as raising prices unnecessarily in some regards.

An increase in efficiency does not happen by simple exhortation. There has to be clear leadership from the top ensuring that the objective of better efficiency is consistently implemented. The oversight requires, among other things, the introduction of regular quality audits.

It also requires, indeed it starts off with, such inefficiency being made public. It is not enough to grumble. Those who are dealt with inefficiently should make the fact known to their representative organisations, as well as directly to the authorities.

This should be done in an open manner, to ensure a spotlight on the administration along a path that can only be satisfied by implementation of sound objectives, not simply by their declaration and reiteration.

It is not a question of grumbling over small things. Efficiency that matters has to be matter of fact. Lack of it should be evident to those who suffer from it and should be impelled to report it.

In other words, do not simply wait for the new administration to give meaning to its promise of more public sector efficiency. When necessary, when one encounters inefficiency, one should act as a spur to early change by articulating the fact and insisting on remedies.

The change in administration should also serve as an opportunity to build new bridges. This applies to individual enterprises but I use the observation here more in regard to relevant organisations representing economic operators.

True, they have a central forum where to air their grievances, make their proposals and be briefed regarding public policy by the authorities, the MCESD. Nevertheless, that is not quite the appropriate forum I am referring to, nor is it enough. It is a forum concerned with policy, more than anything else. Necessary in scope but not enough when it comes to operational issues, some of which arise on a day-to-day basis.

Representative organisations, in addition to seeking bridges with the ministers and parliamentary secretaries applicable to their sectors, should also seek to build or improve relations at department level. There are limits which inhibit such relations.

These limits should not be used as an excuse for departments to distance themselves from proper intercourse with those who use their services.

There are bodies in the public sector which call for an overall overhaul to improve operations and accountability. These include Transport Malta and ARMS Ltd. But in their generality all the departments which deal with the public can enhance their level of efficiency. There can be no doubt that the new political masters will demand that.

Yet the objective should not be left to them alone to achieve. The public should speak up, as some individual consumers do persistently. Representative organisations of economic operators should be as persistent.

This is a new start for the incoming political administration. It will need time to find its feet. Representative organisations should use that time to make their voices heard, to put across their views. To insist that, irrespective of policy, public efficiency is a must in every nook and cranny of the public sector.