What should Malta do about housing? That question stares us in the face, as we see families evicted and living in garages, and more and more middle-class families losing hope of ever setting foot on the property ladder or even social housing.
Which should be Malta’s national day? This question, too, is not just a trivial matter to discuss over a coffee. Especially because the two questions are related.
Celebrating national day is celebrating Malta and what it stands for – or should stand for. A great opportunity to express our love for what is good in our country and, equally importantly, to promote it. And an urge for us to do better where we are not so good.
September 8 celebrates victory after two, even three, sieges, that threatened our very existence as a community with certain beliefs. We fought and won shoulder to shoulder with other countries. When we celebrate it we remind ourselves that we are linked with other countries. It can save us from the excesses of national pride. But it also carries the danger that we think that what other countries want for us is necessarily for our own good.
Independence, Republic and Freedom days were three steps that meant we Maltese people could decide the laws and policies for Malta, how its economy developed, and how its proceeds are distributed.
Now Maltese people lead us, hopefully being better at seeking our own good, than others that had their own countries’ interests first and foremost.
Sette Giugno is, in a way, the odd one out. We celebrate a loss, not a gain: compatriots killed when they rioted. They rioted for more autonomy, for the country to govern itself. In response, we got a flimsy self-government two years later. They also protested about the steeply rising price of bread. The main tax then was the tax on bread, which meant that the poor majority paid proportionately more tax than the well-to-do.
The first British governor of Malta had introduced this tax system in response to the call from businesses that taxing them would set a limit to their enterprises. Then it was only in the 1950s, after voting was no longer restricted to the well-to-do, that the wealthier started to pay more tax. This made it possible for the government to offer substantial services in health, education, housing, etc.
But today the looming housing question can be a turning point for Malta. It could be and remain a parting of the ways that requires the country to make a crucial choice. What happens in housing is going to be a test which are the values that count in our country.
Is greater national wealth or GDP more important than the quality of life of people? Is the power that comes from business-friendliness to overshadow household-friendliness? Statistics show that proceeds from profits in Malta have just outweighed proceeds from salaries in their share of economic activity in Malta. Does this herald a whooshing away of property, power and money from salary and wage earners to those who have bigger coffers?
If we all know that too much growth is bad for most of us, why not have the savvy and courage to bite the bullet and draw the line beforeit is too late?
Self-government and independence are a good thing if they translate into a win-win, in which all carry a fair share of both pain and gain. Independence has delivered only if politicians and businesses have not gained power at the expense of common citizens and the vulnerable. But independence has its downside, too. We can no longer blame il-barrani (foreigners) for most of our woes. There are, in fact, many questions we must ask ourselves to evaluate the Malta we are creating, now that power is in Maltese hands.
In independent Malta, did the skyrocketing of house prices grow spontaneously or through international forces beyond our grasp, or do our leaders and we as followers have a part in it? Should politicians repeat the mantra that owners and developers have the right to raise prices as much as the market allows them? Or should they appeal to such things as conscience and unequivocally condemn those who inflict hardship on innocent, hard-working or vulnerable tenants?
Should our leaders calculate whether Malta’s coffers have enough money to not only offer social housing to all ‘who really need it’ but also to sustain the lower middle class’s access to home ownership in the face of current price and demand pressure? Should they stand by while a vicious circle revs up whereby share of property is lost by salary-earners to be gained by the few?
Do we blame outside forces? If our obligation to sell houses to any of the half a billion EU citizens who want them, and that is beyond our control, why rush to sell Maltese property, with Malta government support, to those from countries to which we have no obligation?
Does this decision make life better or worse for the Maltese salary-earner? Is the obligation, or near-obligation, for passport buyers, to “invest in Maltese property” something that does more harm than good to the Maltese salary earner by raising prices? Why not make investment in such property out of bounds, and make them invest in what can be shown to improve, rather than degrade, life for the many?
If we all know that too much growth is bad for most of us, why not have the savvy and courage to bite the bullet and draw the line before it is too late?
Do we blame the European Court of Human Rights? If we think that that court has real teeth only to defend property enjoyment and the unbridled market, are we aware that Germany controls house prices and security of tenure by tenants without any challenge by that court?
Cannot safeguards similar to those (controversial ones, true) made in favour of band clubs be introduced to defend tenant families? Is our Attorney General’s office ready to champion, in that court if necessary, the very first article of our Constitution that ours is a republic founded on work, against the irresponsible attempts of landlords to impose rents that instantaneously wipe out tenants’ enjoyment of the fruit of their hard work?
When invited in 2011 to mark the 150th anniversary of Italy’s unification and independence, many Italians thought it not worth celebrating. Parts of Italy had fought sincerely for it under Garibaldi, only to find themselves treated like a colony by the king to whom Garibaldi had handed power.
Yes, our Sette Giugno is a sobering memory, but I will happily celebrate independence as our national day – as long as I can see that it will have led to our country becoming more, rather than less, based transparently and confidently on work, fairness and solidarity.
Charles Pace is a specialist in social policy.