Progress and Time: directly proportional?

Many take it for granted that progress and time are directly related. Put in simpler terms: as years go by the world progresses to the better. But an accurate and critical look at the world history proves otherwise.

If we look at the Dark Ages, for instance, we quickly come to the conclusion that progress does not always follow a linear trajectory. In fact Wikipedia defines this period as "the concept of a period of intellectual darkness and economic regression that occurred in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire." The same conclusion is reached after studying the history of primary schooling in Malta. The late 19th century, was characterised by the language question (il-kwistjoni tal-lingwa). Many argue that during this period, instead of moving in a steady linear trajectory, progress in primary schooling was moving in circles, mainly due to the continuous changing of the type of Maltese alphabet taught at school. Similarly a study of the history of Mediterranean countries, especially the MENA (Middle-East and North Africa) region, reveals the negative effect on their progress the colonisation process and the Cold War have had.

Looking into the economic history, we also encounter periods of progressing in circles if not even regression. Every recession, in fact, leads to regression. The present recession, for instance, has not only stopped the extraordinary economic boom of Ireland, but has also led to "a dramatic reversal from 2008, with GDP contracting by 14% and unemployment levels rising to 14% by 2010" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Tiger). And what was once considered as the Celtic Tiger, is now being dubbed as the Celtic Cat.

Looking closer to home, at the South EU region, we are all fully aware of the dire state the inhabitants of Spain, France, Italy, Greece and Cyprus are in. The case of Italy is exceptionally insightful in this regard, as the short spell of Monti as PM had started to put the country in the road of recovery, but last weekend's election result has reversed all the progress that had been made with so much sacrifice.

Even a study of our recent history proves the main argument driving this article - that progress does not always follow a linear trajectory. Alfred Sant's premiership is definetly a case in point. He may have done a handful of positive reforms, mainly in his party, but economically few dispute the fact that his was a complete disaster.

The conclusion is obvious and pretty straightforward. We must not take it for granted that Malta will continue in its positive economic progress irrespective of who is at the helm. Gonzi, and his government, especially Minister Fenech, can be rightly criticised for many misdoings, but their economic insight and control is definitely one of their main attributes.

Of course, Muscat and his team could prove to be as good or even better. However, apart from many buzz words and the worrying pledge for a smaller government, till today we have little hard evidence on which to base a clear opinion on how he plans to steer our economy in this turbulent time.

 

An emulation story

It may be costing the PN more than one percentage point, but they are absolutely right in calling the PL a proxy-Nationalist party. The strategy adopted by the PL has the purpose to give us the message that there is no big difference between the two parties. This is evident from the new image the PL has adopted quite a while ago - blue ties, blue background, the occasional use of English words and the parading of ex-PN sympathisers who have joined them. It is even more evident in the policies they have adopted - pro-Europe, pro-businesses, pro-church schools and most evidently pro middle class. They have even promised to adopt the budget for 2013 proposed by the PN in its entirety, while a good chunk from the 800 proposals from their manifesto are actually a continuation of the policies put into practice by the Gonzi administration. Indeed, it sometimes gets tricky for anyone who is not an avid follower of Maltese politics to identify speakers on TV with their party.

The rationale behind this strategy is very obvious. The last election had the lowest turnout since Independence. The vast majority of those who opted not to vote had opted for PN in the previous election while the vast majority of the PL supporters casted their vote. And yet the PN still managed to clinch a victory. It was therefore clear that if the PL didn't make itself more attractive to ex-PN voters, it would never be in government. There were various ways how they could have achieved this, but the one chosen was to emulate the PN in almost its totality.

At face value, this strategy seems clever indeed as it has put the PN in an awkward position. How can the PN criticise the policies put forward by the PL, if they are the same ones they have been putting into practice for the past two decades?

This incredible strategy seems to have taken the PN so much by surprise that the only way how they reacted to it was to claim they have been copied. Had they been thinking more straight they would have used it in their favour. When the PL chose to emulate the PN, the PL is playing a very dangerous game.  In so doing they are actually admitting that they have been wrong all throughout, while the PN have been right.

Being negative in a positive way

 

Joseph Muscat has been continuously hammering the message that they are leading a positive campaign. Many seem to agree with him. But is it really so?

At face value, he is certainly right. If we compare it to the strategy used by the PN, he might be right. If we had to compare it to Labour's past campaigns he is certainly right.

Their main slogan, Malta Taghna Lkoll, is certainly a positive a one, most would argue. Or is it not?

I beg to differ. Malta Taghna Lkoll implies that Malta is not ours, yet. Then who's is it? Some, echoing Franco Debono, might argue that our beautiful islands have been hijacked by an evil clique. But which clique really? Is it Austin Gatt? Certainly not. The man is not seeking re-election. By Richard Cachia Caruana? If hijacked by Cachia Caruana means an injection of more than €600,000,000 in the Maltese economy, then quite frankly, let it be it. Is Malta hijacked by some big businessmen? Malta, like every other country in the world has always been led by such big fish. If Labour will be elected to power, we would be really naive to believe that the situation will change. At best, we might have a change of guard, but nothing more. Indeed, contrary to some years ago, it is becoming ever more clear that most businessmen (and not only) are actually making it a point to be seen getting closer to the PL so as to be part of the new clique should Muscat be in office.

In other words, through its slogan, the PL is actually echoing Franco Debono's hysteric cry to free Malta from the evil clique. But since the wording used by Debono was negative, they cleverly rephrased it in positive wording.

But their campaign is still positive, some might argue. The campaign they started in January might be predominantly positive, but not the one they had been doing before. Many certainly remember the numerous PL billboards scattered all over Malta showing us Franco Debono and the others with Gonzi covering his eyes, ears, in a kitchen, sporting a Brazilian t-shirt and worst of all their Father Christmas billboard.

It is clear that the PL have concentrated most of their dirty tricks before the actual election campaign to then move to a more positive one during the last part of the campaign. I used the word 'most' because we are witnessing the negative way how the debates in the higher education institutions have been organised - in great dissonance to the spirit of unity characterising the PL campaign.

Jobs, jobs, jobs

A lot of issues are being discussed during this electoral campaign - electricity tariffs, unity, corruption, Toni Abela..... But in my opinion, the issue which matters most is the one which is being discussed less - jobs.

One doesn't need to be a genius to realise the importance of jobs. When a household has a safe income, bills can be paid, food can be bought and the level of wellbeing increases. The first people to gain from the job (or jobs) are the members of that household, but they are not the only beneficiaries. With consumerism so much ingrained in us all, the majority of that income is sure to end up circulating in the Maltese economy. This in its turn will make sure that enough funds are generated to sustain the government's spending on social welfare, health, education, etc. Moreover, if this spending is kept under good control the government will be able to lower its deficit and possibly even start registering a balance.

In short, with the creation and consolidation of jobs, every Maltese is set to gain. So why aren't jobs being discussed?

To be fair, the PN has been trying to push the issue of jobs higher up on the agenda. But it is quite obvious, that the party who has been so successful in the past electoral campaigns to set the agenda, has lost its muscle (an issue I will tackle in another post).

The PL, on the other hand, is much more interested in promoting national unity, than showing us how they plan to create more jobs. Of course, the fact that jobs are not discussed serves them well, as this will put the spotlight on, arguably, Gonzi's greatest success - low level of unemployment and the creation of 20,000 jobs. This success is even greater if we consider that the last four years have seen a constant increase in unemployment worldwide, especially in the southern European countries.

The creation of jobs is going to be more important in this legislature as, starting from this year, the retirement age is set to increase. This means there will be fewer jobs automatically available for people entering the workforce for the first time.

The disregard of jobs is perplexing indeed. The cause for this strange local phenomenon could be because we seem to be taking them for granted. If it is so, it is yet another proof of the success of this government. We have to be very cautious however, as it might soon gain more importance in the national agenda. But by then it might be too late.

 

National Unity - some thoughts

Let me be clear from the outset, the purpose of this post is not to give a comprehensive view of all the issues related to national unity (if it is at all possible for anyone to give such a comprehensive view on anything).  My aim is to trigger some critical thoughts.

As stated in the previous post such a concept is in desperate need to be problematized.  What do we understand by national unity?  How can we achieve it? (if at all possible, that is)

Both questions, in my opinion are closely linked to each other.  Anyone proposing national unity has to have a clear understanding of the notion.  Then, based on his/her definition, s/he devices a plan (or to be more trendy, roadmap) to achieve it.

I may be wrong, but the impression I get is that most tend to equate it to a society in which we forget our differences and try to find ways in which everyone is in agreement - the fairy tale type.  Those who endorse such a view put a lot of emphasis on the reaching of consensus, in this case, national consensus.

At face value, such a view seems to be right (for anything it might mean).  But is it really so? In my view, such a view kills diversity - the spice of life.  It is in fact my opinion that the only way (I try not to be absolute in my reasoning, but I honestly can't see any other way) how to achieve unity is by celebrating diversity.  Such a view is based on tolerance (for wanting of a better word) and on the ability to accept that others can have a different view than one's own.  Of course, this does not rubbish away the possibility of reaching a consensus, but it does not consider it as an absolute principle, either.

Another crucial skill for unity based on the celebration of diversity is the courage to speak one's own mind... in an informed and responsible way, of course.

History and national unity - mutually exclusive?

The slogan the PL has chosen for its electoral campaign is Malta Tagħna Lkoll. The rationale behind such a slogan, as has been explained numerous times by the PL exponents and Joseph Muscat himself, is to give a sense of unity rather than of division.

In their bid towards national unity, the PL have been continuously criticising the PN for mentioning parts of our recent, and not so recent, political history, because this fosters division not unity.

Are the PL right or wrong? Is the PN fostering division, when its exponents remind us of the not so glorious past of the PL?

Quite honestly, there is no clear cut answer.

Admittingly, the mentioning of such instances can foster division in our nation, especially when more than half the Maltese population has a vivid experience of those turbulent times. Due to this many, I included, tend to recount them with a lot of passion. In this sense, the spirit which Joseph Muscat is trying to instill in his party, and beyond, (even if 25 years late) is commendable.

One however has to be cautious, because the arguments put forward by the PL seem to be based on the premise that in order to foster unity we need to forget the past and focus on the future.

Frankly, I disagree with this reasoning. In my opinion, such a rationale is not only wrong but, more importantly, does not lead to national unity.

But before continuing further, we need to stop and reflect on the notion of national unity. What do we understand by national unity? This is one question I would like some intelligent journalist to ask the leaders of the political parties. Some, seem to equate it with the way all fairy-tales end "....and they lived happily ever after." Or to the one described by Ġuże' Ellul Mercer in his writing Malta Ġenna tal-art.

The notion of national unity is a very complex issue. I will tackle it in another post. For the sake of this post, it is sufficient to realise that such a notion needs to be problematized. Now, back to importance of history.

Everyone will agree with me that our future needs to be built on solid ground. Well, in my view (and many others who are more intelligent than I can ever aspire to be), a crucial component of that solid ground is our past. The study of our history helps us to better understand ourselves - from where have our present values originated? Why segments of Maltese behave the way they do? Moreover, by critically reflecting on the mistakes our ancestors, or we, have done we may be able to avoid making similar mistakes.

It therefore follows that if we really do not want history to repeat itself, one way to do it is by remembering it.