Can We Afford to be Serious. Can We Afford Not to be

Maltastar





Politics is serious business. It is the process to manage and sometimes instigate change intended to generate sustainable economic growth leading to a higher standard of living of the people who expect their leaders to guide them to progress and peace. But taken in a local context can politicians afford to be serious` Would politicians who speak the truth and promise hard work to achieve set objectives stand a real chance to prove themselves` There was a time when declarations of `inrossu c-cinturin` did not scare voters. But facing an electorate that has been duped for fifteen years by its leaders who proclaim solemnly that money is no problem; that in the face of contrary evidence continue to proclaim that all is well; that hold on to their power by spending tomorrow`s earnings and leaving a debt legacy for our children, can politicians afford to be honest about the state of the economy and the pain of the necessary corrective measures that will get more painful the more they are delayed`

`The PN government clearly thinks that politicians cannot afford to be serious.`

The PN government clearly thinks that politicians cannot afford to be serious. Before the elections they invented myths like the Lm100 million EU funds p.a. knowing fully well that there was not even a remote possibility for such funds to materialise. Now on the eve of the conclusion of negotiations leading to membership, as the truth about the funds stands sharply in focus, they promise different freebies for the future. Directly and through the submissive acolytes like the Governor of the Central Bank, they impress that EU membership is tantamount to more FDI and more economic growth. In their conscience they know that the connection between the two is at best casual and not consequential. They know that FDI and economic growth depends mostly on serious economic management rendering a competitive cost base and an educational system producing top quality workforce. Yet as elections approach they throw to wind all caution and to lure votes they are prepared to prejudice the financial structure and the cost competitiveness of the country. And whilst they do this and jeopardise the economic future of our children, those that are handsomely paid to defend us from such excesses of the politicians, with particular mention to the Governor of the Central Bank, remain perfectly silent.

`The PN promised bonanza to civil service employees and soon after getting elected had to deliver, without much negotiations, substantial salary increases`



Take one of the most important cost inputs: salary structures of the civil service. Labour government was seriously negotiating with the unions a collective agreement during its two year term between 1996 -1998. It held on to the purse quite tightly knowing that it had inherited a big budget deficit that had to be solved, at least in part by expenditure control, and not merely through higher taxation. Political convenience would have suggested reaching a generous deal on election eve and then muddle through problems as well as one could after getting re-elected. Labour government, did not fall for it but it fell from power. The PN promised bonanza to civil service employees and soon after getting elected had to deliver, without much negotiations, substantial salary increases. The consequences of this are there for all to see. In spite of squeezing our pockets dry through increased taxation these last four years, the deficit remains obstinately unaddressed as increased revenue flows went straight to finance increased expenditure. The Minister of Finance, as the person who ultimately bears the responsibility for the spending sprees of his cabinet colleagues who seem to have no respect for budgetary controls, has been saying for a long time that a wage freeze in civil service salaries is unavoidable to smoothen over a longer period the sharp increase allowed after the 1998 election victory. `The issue is not what the government can afford politically; it is more what the country can afford economically and socially` Anyone who has the long term interest of the country at heart and who means to preserve the competitiveness of the country, anyone who means to really re-structure the economy by organising an orderly and gradual shift of human resources from the public unproductive sector to the private productive sector, would not disagree with such a view. One would just query the sense of political accommodation for granting such large increases so early in the legislature and leave the hard nose negotiating to the last bit vote sensitive part of the legislature.



But now that things are getting politically hot, government thaws on its stand. As usual true solutions to problems would have to take second row to political expediency. Clearly the government believes it cannot politically afford to be serious. But the issue has to be seen in a wider perspective` The issue is not what the government can afford politically; it is more what the country can afford economically and socially. Can we afford to continue driving up our cost base, which could risk the closure of private economic units that are rendered uneconomic in the globalised world, purely to support and sustain a politically sensitive sector whose over manning is the single largest cause of the structural fiscal deficit` Is it socially acceptable that in order to improve the conditions of those who already have secure and often not so strenuous jobs with conditions undreamed of in the private sector, then the jobs of workers in the private sector with minimal or no job security protection are risked in spite of their having to work at much higher efficiency levels with all its strain and discomfort` Can the country afford its politicians not to be serious`