The May 1 celebration last week was not just about elections and EU membership or morale-building and letting go of tensions that have accumulated over the past months. It is the yearly reminder that business operates in a society that - because of circumstances, some man-made and some totally out of man's control - is not always just to everyone in the same way; and because of such injustices, one has to be active to address the imbalance that is created.
As with anything else in life, an imbalance is a potentially dangerous situation that requires addressing.
The type of imbalance I am referring to here is the one between profit and social justice. Profit is the result that every business aims for; and rightly so because it is a reward for the risks that an entrepreneur takes.
On the other hand, social justice is the objective one aims for to ensure that there are harmonious relationships in society. If there is too much emphasis on profit in any economy, with the consequence that the principles of social justice are discarded, the effect would be conflict in relationships among the key players in that economy, which in turn would tend to create a situation that could reduce the profits businesses would be striving for.
On the other hand still, if there is too much emphasis on maintaining harmonious relationships in society in the name of social justice, the profitability of enterprises could be impaired, with the result that less wealth would be created in the economy, a situation that would in turn create conflict in society.
So the loss of balance between the quest for profit and the quest for social justice, either way, would lead to a loss of both and therefore the two seem irreconcilable.
May Day is a reminder of this basic economic fact of life. However, the terms profit and social justice may seem to be archaic; or the quest for either of them may seem to be an impossibility.
Whatever perspective from which one looks at the issue, we need to find some common ground that makes this balance between the two not as elusive as it may seem in the first place. Appreciating the benefits of solidarity and enterprise at the same time and putting them at an equal level could represent this common ground.
Enterprise is what creates wealth and jobs in an economy and therefore long-term, sustainable economic growth. It is for this reason that a government spends a great deal of effort to cultivate a spirit of enterprise in an economy. This is done through various methods, including the provision of fiscal incentives for certain segments of the economy, the provision of training support services, at times even the provision of direct financial support.
Enterprise nurtures initiative which in turn, nurtures calculated risk taking and innovation that generate profit. An economy without a spirit of enterprise cannot thrive.
Solidarity, on the other hand, is the result of the willingness of people to support each other, thereby creating more social cohesion. It is evidently different to a simple re-distribution of wealth through taxation and spending on social benefits.
Past history in Malta and abroad has shown that raising tax revenues in order to increase social benefits leads to social parasites (i.e. people who expect the state to support them from the cradle to the grave not because they are unable to support themselves but because they simply do not want to) and tax evasion (because income earners find it unfair to pay tax for it to be spent on lazy people).
Solidarity is built on fairness and a lack of selfishness that, in turn, lead to more social cohesion and a climate where business can operate freely if it follows the rule of the game. Thus, solidarity and enterprise are not only reconcilable but also both desirable to the same extent.
This is not always fully appreciated. The anti-globalisation government thrived the world over because it has not been so evident that the globalisation process of business is likely to lead to more solidarity and therefore more social justice.
Similarly, there is a negative feeling towards the privatisation process of certain entities, not just in Malta but abroad as well, because there is a fear that state ownership would be replaced by ownership in the hands of a few persons, thereby turning former public entities into family businesses.
One of the benefits of EU membership is a greater focus on enterprise and solidarity. In his May Day speech, Gejtu Vella, UHM secretary general, stressed that trade unions become stronger within a European Union context. I am sure that his intention is not to strengthen parasitic tendencies of certain employees, but rather to strengthen the spirit of solidarity.
The EU also allocates resources to nurture enterprise in the member states because there is the conviction that enterprise creates jobs. I remember a former member of government, now a member of the judiciary, claiming that the best social benefit that any government can give is job creation that is economically viable.
Although this was a point that has not been given too much attention during the last four months, presumably because it is not so concrete in its nature, one needs to remember that EU membership helps us to create this required balance between the need for profit and the need for social justice, through the promotion of the spirit of enterprise and the spirit of solidarity.