Turning consultation into social dialogue

Experience has shown that social dialogue is an essential element for the smooth development of countries. The country within the European Union most often quoted as having attained tremendous economic growth is Ireland.

For social dialogue to be effective, it must become a culture. The legislation may be a step in the right direction but it is surely not enough.

If one applies the legislation to the letter, one may find that the role of such bodies is one of consultation. Consultation is a specific relation. It recognises the fact that not all parties are equal. One party has the right to do what it wishes to do. The legislation only obliges this party to listen and then to decide on the action to be taken immaterial of the suggestions or objections that the other party or parties might put forward.

One should point out that this is a bone of contention among the social partners especially the trade unions which have long surpassed this stage in their everyday dealings. Maltese unions have long since achieved the right of negotiation years ago.

Where there is a culture of social dialogue the difference between the parties is still recognised through legislation but the understanding is that the party holding executive powers recognises that it cannot achieve its objectives on its own and, thus, needs the contributions of the other parties.

It considers the others as stakeholders and partners. It also recognises the need and strives to turn consultation into social dialogue which recognises the importance and acceptance of all interests and parties. Once this culture takes roots, consultation loses its meaning and tends to become a coalition of productive forces. Progress could then be registered.

The strategy to attain this level of cooperation must be two pronged. There is the legislative side which would only provide a structure and, thus, a framework and a direction. The second and most important step would be for the government to change the nature of its relations with the other groups and, thus, turn such relation into true social dialogue.

The present Maltese legislative framework is not adequate. In fact, we feel there is need for a change in the legislative structure. There should be one body - the council. The way things developed in Malta, such a strategy requires that the four main factors of the equation are represented into a single body. Thus, those representing civil society should also form part of this council. As such, the Maltese civil society would be recognised as an equal stakeholder.

Should the Malta Council or Economic and Social Development be an advisory body to the government or to parliament? Since government forms part of the council, the MCESD should be a parliament advisory body. There would be an added advantage since reports issued by the MCESD would be debated in parliament and thus, become included automatically in the national agenda.

Such a change might provide an added stimulus for the government's representatives to participate fully and more actively. But the most important change would be that such a body would have the role of setting up national objectives.

Some may fear that this might present competition to the government. Such a possibility is remote because the government forms an integral part of this structure. Secondly, the short- and medium-term objectives would still be the prerogative of the government of the day while the MCESD's role would be setting up long-term national objectives.

Representation from the government side should be wider. For example, both the Education and Health Divisions should be represented. However, the government side should also include other bodies set up by government itself to advise it on certain issues. I believe that the following bodies, which form part of the Civil Society Committee, should form part of the government side:

The Local Councils Association, the National Council for the Elderly, the National Commission Persons with Disability and the Commission for the Advancement of Women. Other government advisory bodies should also be included.

This change, apart from streamlining, might bring about more vigour, active participation and initiative from the government side and, thus, answer some of the criticism from the employers' and trade unions' side regarding present participation from the government side.

On the other hand, the civil society side should be wider and more inclusive. Since the first meeting of the Civil Society Committee, the Consumers' Association proposed that both senior citizens organisations and NGOs operating in the environment sector should be represented.

One cannot imagine how the civil society side can be representative of society and act to bring about social dialogue at large if the citizens' groups representing these two sectors are not included.

The changes proposed above might bring resistance from the present "social partners" as they might see that they are losing their importance through dilution. However, this is not necessarily so, as the present MCESD council could become a specialised committee of the council.

This brings us to another point. Changing structure is not enough. The MCESD needs to set its own agenda, be proactive and prepare a programme of work for an adequate stretch of time.

This should be prepared by the chairman and his staff and approved by the council. In fact, that is why, if the government truly believes in social dialogue it must be prepared to devote more resources to the MCESD. Without adequate resources, both financial and human, the MCESD cannot function well. It would remain a national crisis management mechanism. Needless to say, such a role would never lead to social dialogue.

Once the MCESD is properly financed and a programme of work is agreed upon, the MCESD needs to divide itself in groups. This is nothing new as the MCED already adopted such a procedure, for example, to study and put forward its proposals regarding changes in the labour law.

However, the MCESD needs to set up several permanent groups, such as the industrial relations group, where it could also serve as a clearing house between the social partners to deal with issues of mutual interest before such issues grow out of proportion.

If one doubts the importance of such groups one only needs to refer to the work done and influence exerted by the Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion Group, the Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship Group and other groups within the EU Economic and Social Committee. The opinion formed within these groups is highly considered and usually adopted by the committee.

Apart from the permanent groups, the MCESD would need to set up other ad hoc sub-committees for special topics which concern groups within the MCESD.

These sub-committees would operate within specific terms of reference set by the council and examine and give their opinion within a given deadline. Such is the structure of the EU Economic and Social Committee. It seems to work adequately and produces effective results. There is nothing that prohibits such a structure to operate as effectively in Malta except, maybe, lack of political will and adequate resources.

The MCESD structure would, thus, become more democratic. In a democracy, importance is not synonymous with names and structures but with role, activity, contribution and importance of the subject dealt with.

Industrial relations and the running of the economy would always be important subjects. Thus, the importance of the present social partners would depend on their activity, the advice they give and the solutions proposed and not on legislation. Nobody doubts their present and future importance but nobody doubts that other bodies and citizen groups are stakeholders too.

Concluded