The essence of public participation

At this time last year, the referendum campaign for EU membership was in full swing. At that time the Maltese people were being asked to decide on one particular issue - whether or not to join the EU. The party in government had promised that such an important issue should not be confused with other issues in a general election.

An unequivocal message was expected from the people of this country. This was given (barring the bizarre claims that "partnership has won"). The party in opposition did not think likewise and insisted that such an issue should be decided by a general election. It is one thing drawing people out onto the streets to protest. It is another thing allowing those same people to decide specifically on the issue to become part of the largest market in the world with the consequent benefits for trade and investment and the financial assistance that goes with it.

Public participation goes beyond universal suffrage. The case for public participation in the democratic process of a country and in matters that affect our quality of living should not have its roots in political convenience. It must have its roots in the value that those to be elected, on taking office, will do so only to serve the common good. There will always be the pressures from various interest groups, some organised and others not so organised, to have their point of view cystallised in public policy. However, for the decision-maker it is the common good that should be the guiding principle.

The public in Malta, as in other societies, includes everybody (wife, husband, single mother, single father, young man, young woman, boy, girl, child, elderly man, elderly woman) with a myriad combinations of health and sickness and abilities and disabilities.

This government took many decisions that were considered revolutionary at the time and which put public participation as a key feature of the administrative process. But sometimes one forgets the importance of such decisions because one might forget how the situation was prior to such decisions.

In our country, the public has also become used over the last years to also have a say in decisions that affect it directly with respect to environmental and development matters. This was a courageous decision taken 12 years ago. Politicians decided that ministers should not ride roughshod over the concerns of those affected negatively by a proposed development. They also decided that ministers should not ride roughshod over applicants for development permissions by not granting them permits for reasons that only the ministers would know.

We can make things very easy now. We can have simpler processes by removing all public participation from such processes and have permits issued in very short time. We can have a whole system that excludes totally the public and have a regulatory authority (in this case Mepa) dealing only with the developer. All this is possible. However, where would the public feature in all this? Nowhere. Democratic processes intrinsically mean a prolonged decision-making process. When many, and not few, are allowed their say, when concrete reasons and not whims are allowed to prevail, things are not clear-cut. Do we want to cut our nose to spite our face?

Apart from the input by the public on development applications, government departments and agencies are required by law to comment on such applications, when asked by Mepa. Here, for the sake of a better service to the public, improvements have to be made. In fact, I believe that the next stage of the government's reform in the planning process is an audit of the time that government departments and agencies take in commenting on applications. There are too many instances where such comments arrive too late, that is more than the four weeks established by law, or not at all, thus prolonging the application process unnecessarily. Such responses are crucial because they shed further light on the validity or otherwise of comments by the public.

Those of a certain age remember the ravaging of the countryside prior to the decision by politicians in 1992 to open the doors to public participation in the planning process. Let us not forget what used to happen before that time and what else would have happened if that decision was not taken.

EU directives give the public a broad participation process in matters that affect it directly. Apart from the tangible financial benefits of membership and access to markets, the general public does count in the EU. Last year the general public in Malta voted to have more checks on their politicians. It can sue the government if the latter does not deliver on its environmental commitments. Indeed, last year was a triumph for the general public. Are some of us already regretting it?

Mr Pullicino is minister of rural affairs and the environment.