Editorial

Do we or do we not need a social pact? If, as the general consensus seems to be, we do, then we should not lose further time in drawing up one in the shortest time possible. For quite some time now, we have been acting as if we are groping in the dark, with the government going its way and the private sector behaving very much like a rudderless ship.

To make matters worse, the opposition has kept up its pre-EU referendum stance of spreading as much doom and gloom as possible, with its ally, the General Workers' Union, invariably choosing to follow suit - as it has done over the years. One quarter of the year will soon be over and, as more firms report difficulties in coping with the situation as it is evolving in an increasingly competitive market, the island has still not been able to find its feet, despite declarations to the contrary by the government.

Now, the Union Haddiema Maghqudin has delivered what it had promised some time ago, a draft of a social pact. The UHM, originally a government clerical union that has now grown into a very strong union, was among the first, if not the first, to come out with the idea. The government supported the proposal and The Times has for long now been stressing the urgency on the part of the social partners to come together and commit themselves to the implementation of a workable social pact.

The country will not be re-inventing the wheel if it goes for a social pact. Social partners in countries facing problems that were more or less similar to what we have here today had managed to join forces in the interest of their country to push for reforms. In many cases, these had succeeded and are now in a much better situation than they were before, both economically and socially. Why should we not be able to do the same?

With the two largest unions in the country being perceived, rightly or wrongly, to belong to different political camps, and given the usually rival relationship that exists between the two, it would have been better perhaps had the social pact proposal come from both, or from another source, for that matter. But given that the UHM has now done the groundwork, would it not be wise for the social partners, including, of course, the GWU, to accept it as a working document for the drawing up of a national social pact? For, let's face it, no social pact can work without the active participation of the GWU. Indeed, as major partners, both the GWU and the UHM have to play a key role in the implementation of a social pact. In this regard, lowering the degree of antagonism should serve a very good purpose.

If the GWU means what it says in the many activities it holds for its members, if it truly feels the need for a new beginning in the development effort, then it should find no difficultly at all in fully taking part in the drawing up of a workable social pact.

On its part, the UHM, having done what it had promised, should now work towards encouraging each and every other social partner to work together and fashion a pact that will help take the country out of the string of problems we are facing now. In doing this, all the partners would be able to assume paternity of the social pact when it is finally concluded and agreed upon.