Simple Matters

Maltastar 
   

Successful leaders excel in communicating complicated things in a simple manner so that the masses can understand them and accept them as objectives worth striving for.

“But there is an increasing conviction that the prime minister has lost all control over the minister of finance who seems to have his own government within the government.”

In Malta, unfortunately, we have developed a knack for just the opposite – to complicate unnecessarily matters which are basically quite simple.

Take the latest privatisation of MIA. Following the Mid-Med Bank sale saga the government had published a privatisation policy document that outlined the methodology to be used for future privatisations. The document was put together with technical assistance from the World Bank. The keyword in this document is transparency. The process of privatisation had to be fair and be seen as fair in order to gain broad-based support and not be subject to controversy.

So what on earth is the government waiting for to publish the agreement reached and signed for the privatisation of MIA and to accept the challenge put to it by the losing consortium to go public with the whole process to remove all doubts that something as bad as they claim actually took place? Or is transparency a notion valid for white papers, to be shunned when the real thing comes along?

Normally such controversy would be enough for a minister to take the self-respecting decision to resign, especially after losing for the country so many millions in the sale of Mid-Med Bank. And if the minister happens to have lost all self-respect than it would be up to the prime minister to sanction his failing minister by transferring privatisation out of his portfolio of responsibilities.

But there is an increasing conviction that the prime minister has lost all control over the minister of finance who seems to have his own government within the government.

The privatisation of MIA gives rise for concern for two distinct reasons. Firstly it is the way the deal was structured which allows the winning consortium to take full control of such a strategic asset with a minority stake, with a clear right to cream away the profits through management and technical services agreement. The responsibility for this rests squarely and solely with the government, as the structure of the deal is a political decision.

“A referendum should only be held if the electorate’s decision can be expected to be the last word on the matter.“

The second problem is the accusation of lack of transparency. And this accusation is shouldered also by the privatisation unit which primarily handled the negotiations except apparently that in the final stages that has caused so much angst, where the Minister again dealt the negotiations on a first hand basis. So to us taxpayers it is not clear who decided what, when and why. It is imperative for the sake of transparency that the privatisation unit publishes its final analysis and recommendations for the award of this bid and for the government to publish the cabinet papers which confirms, alters or upsets the recommendations of the privatisation unit.

Transparency please, so simple and yet, it seems, so complicated. But then we may be expecting too much. In no serious country on the face of the earth would a minister in charge of privatisation cause so much controversy in all three privatisations handled and yet he is not disciplined.

Another unnecessary complication is the referendum over the EU issue. A referendum should only be held if the electorate’s decision can be expected to be the last word on the matter. It is normal for referenda to be held only where two basic conditions prevail:

1. It has to be about something which is of such importance and which is so irreversible that it binds and conditions not only the government that organises it but also future governments. Clearly the EU issue fits this condition. Labour Partnership proposals does not as the decision could be eventually up-graded and is not irreversible.

2. The government that organises the referendum has to have sufficient time in office to execute the referendum decision.

On the second point the referendum being proposed for early next year fails to pass the test unless it is preceded by a general election giving the winning government good time to execute the electorate's decision.

To my simple mind if the PN goes for the referendum on this side of the election it would be a pure measure of convenience to enhance their chances of winning the subsequent electoral contest. This deprives the referendum from the national approach ingredient which is so essential.

So simple and, yet, so complicated.