Simplicity, and broad beans

There is a careful projection of a defining political style in the air. The government terms it "decisiveness". The Prime Minister propels the theme constantly. He has just reiterated that he was prepared to spend hours discussing with the social partners. Provided that, ultimately, there was a decision. Meaning that, if agreement or consensus could not be achieved, the government - essentially the PM - would decide. I can understand the spirit of that particular type of decisiveness.

Lawrence Gonzi may have been shoved towards assuming the style in the contest for the leadership of the Nationalist Party, and thereby the premiership for all of around 50 months, in view of the determined and robust style of John Dalli, the other main contender. Once he did become leader and PM, however, he would have swiftly concluded that he had to make a template of decisiveness.

No surprise in that. Government is about decision taking. The idea that one can only implement measures that are agreed upon at the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD), is barmy. Wise governments would strive to find as much common ground as possible. But decisions are taken at the margin. At that point no government can simultaneously satisfy or please enough.

It is not even possible for any honest party in office to start with the least common denominator and move on to the highest common factor. Social, political and economic progress can only take place through clearly defined and definite change. And change always disturbs or dislocates someone at the margin. The circle is neither vicious nor virtuous. It is a reality.

Setting up the MCESD (as it subsequently became, once emphasis on the social aspect was painted in, as if that was not inherent in the economic aspect) was a good idea. The council offered a forum for broad discussion. A mechanism to make an effort to bring about convergence of opinions and stances. The outcome did not quite reach the limited potential.

The social partners tended to find the council as another adversarial ring within which to confront each other. Initially, the plan seemed to be to position for the corner that could best influence government decisions. In time it became a mechanism whereby to try to put the government of the day into the corner of one's choice. Very early into my under-six-months as minister of finance and the economy after Labour swept into brief office in October, 1996, I presided over a meeting of the council.

Members were surprised and disappointed when I made it clear that the media had deliberately not been invited for photo opportunities. They were more audibly dismayed when, after I outlined the horrific state of the public finances that I had unearthed, and gave my analysis of the actual and foreseeable economic situation, I said that the council should henceforth meet as far as possible without my presence.

The private sector partners wanted a political presence. Initially, I could tell, as a referee. Later on, I suspected, to round upon. We are now at the stage where the social partners, not thinking deeply enough, or trying to be too clever by half, expect the government to take decisions on taxation, energy tariffs, the size of domestic broad beans, and such like, only up to the extent that they approve of them. That is nonsensical.

Were we a direct democracy the government would put major proposals to the people in general - not to a caucus - to decide upon through referenda. Ours is not that. It is a representative democracy. The government, elected by (only) the majority of those who cast a valid vote is expected to represent the interest of (all) the people, though far too often it speaks in an unabashed and shameful partisan manner, as the sitting PM, slavishly faithful to the post-Mintoff bi-party tradition, does every Sunday.

The government should consult. It should listen. It also has the right and duty to act and decide. The opposition should be just as aware of that fundamental reality, if it truly sees itself as the alternative government, not having to renege on today's opportunistic stances when it does win office.

The basic question is - Who governs? The equally basic answer is - the government of the day, governs. The democratic underpinning imperative is - if a majority of the people do not like the way the government of the day governs, they are at liberty to chuck it out at the next election.

It should be that simple. Without any posturing, huffing, or puffing.