Let’s make it Dialogue 2050

The government recently issued an 82-page document in which it offered its ‘Vision 2050’, with targets for 10 and 25 years from now. The public consultation comes to an end on September 9. Are there any good reasons to overcome a gut scepticism about the long-term strategy – by a government that can scarcely stick to a promise beyond a year, for a world which could be unrecognisable within four?

We can’t afford not to have a national long-term strategy. So we have to do our best to contribute. But our best must include recognising why scepticism is natural. Any long-term strategy needs social cohesion and support. If it isn’t credible, it will fail.

The lack of credibility has three sources. First, there’s the identity of who’s offering it. It’s a vision of good governance and transparency by a government that is reversing the standards of accountability and scoffing at authorities such as the parliamentary standards commissioner.

Second, there’s what the consultation document says. It offers a vision of Malta as a top-tier country in spatial management, human development and affluence. It’s a future that no one can disagree with, but how do we get there when our present is riddled with disagreement?

Every pillar of this document is laudable: high quality of life and education, sustainable development, smart use of land and sea. But none is new. They go back at least to the first government led by Lawrence Gonzi (2004-08).

If it were easy to develop a high-quality cultural tourism, why don’t we have it already? We’ve been talking about it for decades.

Likewise, Maltese governments have been studying the possibilities of strategic resource management, developing a marine economy and competing uses of space since 2006, if not earlier. Some progress was made; most was frustrated, derailed or reversed.

The failure came from lobbies with greater heft, bureaucratic inertia and government distraction by short-term issues. But the document says nothing about resistance; or learning from failure. What will make adhering to the noble resolutions different this time?

Third, there is the ambition itself: 2050, no matter what, irrespective of whether, within five years, Europe will be at war, or led largely by populist governments, rising in its diplomatic influence or sinking into global irrelevance.

The document gives AI and automation the attention they need. But, five years ago, we scarcely knew about ChatGPT; today, AI is displacing Google as a search engine and news source, not just churning out school essays and videos. We don’t even know where we’re going to be in 2030.

Part of the problem is that the document issued for public consultation is a summary, we’re told, of more elaborate and detailed sectorial studies. But the public can only comment on what it has.

The larger part of the problem is the overweening nature of the ambition. No one’s vision of 2050 can be taken seriously – that is, as a prediction of what’s actually going to take place.

The variables are too large. The times we’re living in are too unstable. We’re making plans in a world dominated by the US for a period when the leading superpower might be China, climate change might alter land and sea, humans might extend the average lifespan to 120 years and AI might develop consciousness.

There are no year by year targets to hold the government to account. The first real targets are for 2035 – in other words, a problem for another prime minister and cabinet- Ranier Fsadni

Or maybe not. The point is we live in a world of radical discontinuities, unforeseen consequences and surprises.

These three objections – lack of credibility, no acknowledgment of past failures and over-ambition – are serious but they do have an answer. It’s easier to begin from the end.

Yes, it’s impossible to envision the world in 2050. So why do so many countries adopt long-term visions and publish them? Because, despite the name (‘vision’), the targets and strategies are really ways of talking about the future, not seeing it: arguing over it and getting different stakeholders to commit to a destiny.

The ‘visions’ only work if they’re part of a structured social dialogue. If you expect them to be predictive, you will be disappointed. You conduct the dialogue to see what is possible, what might go wrong and what you need to do to get cohesive support for the long-term strategy.

Luxembourg’s vision for 2050 did not just initiate ‘public consultation’ in an unstructured way. It offered scenarios, which included the government ‘sleepwalking’ into the future, on automatic pilot; an optimistic scenario exploiting new digital possibilities; and an environmental governance scenario.

It found out that the public was sceptical about the government’s readiness for sound environmental governance, even though it was credited with being able to take advantage of economic possibilities.

Scenarios are the way a well-conducted social dialogue tests the strategy’s grand story against ordinary people’s own experience. Then the strategy is adjusted to address the problems that have been overlooked.

There’s another way of testing and adjusting the strategy. Singapore’s environmental vision for 2030 sets itself very concrete targets – such as the number of trees that will be planted each year and the land area in square metres turned over to parks. Concreteness means accountability. Any lack of realism will quickly turn up if the targets are missed, and the focus can be on the reasons for failure.

The Malta document has no scenarios for the public to consider (although we’re told scenarios were considered in the wide consultation carried in preparing the document). And there are no year by year targets to hold the government to account. The first real targets are for 2035 – in other words, a problem for another prime minister and cabinet.

If the strategy is to succeed, accountability for targets must be introduced now. And the consultation must remain open, ongoing, structured and scenario-based. If the targets remain long-term, and the consultation loose, the scepticism will be justified.