The Malta Council for Economic and Social Development may be in for a very bumpy ride. It is expected to have its first meeting today since the March 9 general election to be given a presentation on the Budget for 2013.
However, the controversial appointment of its new chairman, John Bencini, is not conducive to the sort of climate that should prevail in a forum of this type.
When it was set up by law in 2001, the MCESD was meant to be “an advisory body in order to provide a forum for consultation and social dialogue between social partners”.
The law also laid down that its chairman should be appointed “after consultation” with the organisations represented on the council.
Unless, by “consultation” Prime Minister Joseph Muscat understands simply informing the constituted bodies sitting on the MCESD of his choice, the appointment is not only an affront to the social partners but also a violation of both the spirit and letter of the law.
In view of the fact that Mr Bencini’s name had been circulating as a possible MCESD chairman, The Times sounded out the social partners and found that the majority had reservations about his nomination. More specifically, six of the 10 bodies represented on the economic and social development consultative council gave the thumbs down. They will be attending today’s meeting but only after having considered a boycott.
Only the General Workers’ Union, which has a history of capitulating to Labour Government diktats, and the Forum grouping of trade unions, which Mr Bencini presided over until he was forced to resign a few months ago, welcomed the decision.
The social partners that objected to the nomination let it be known that, while they had nothing against Mr Bencini personally, they did not have a good working relationship with him and deemed him unfit for the job.
This is bad news for the MCESD itself but also for the Government and, more importantly, for society.
Over the years, the MCESD’s role in advising the Government on issues related to the sustainable economic and social development of Malta continued to grow. It debated very sensitive issues and, more often than not, agreed on common stands that ensured social and industrial consensus and also made life easier for everyone.
There must have been instances when the parties disagreed and when the art of conciliation and mediation had to be exercised by the chairman to bring them together, or, at least, as close together as possible. This can hardly be the case with Mr Bencini given what the majority of the social partners think of him.
It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister should have failed to consider or realise this before he named Mr Bencini for the post.
In the month he has been in Castille, Dr Muscat has made a number of mistakes that will come back to haunt him. His electoral slogans of Malta For All and that “you may not agree with us but you can work with us” are already sounding hollow.
Unfortunately, once the decision to appoint Mr Bencini has been publicly communicated, it is unlikely that Dr Muscat will retract it. It does take a great man to admit he is wrong.
The solution, therefore, lies with Mr Bencini himself. He has a trade union background and must, therefore, fully realise that industrial and social harmony are imperative for a country to continue on the road of development.
In the circumstances, Mr Bencini should take the honourable way out, thank the Prime Minister and turn down the appointment.