Democracy being held hostage

In a post-ideological era of politics the only consistent principle prevalent in electoral manifestos and agendas is the promise of creating a pro-business environment. Political debates in Malta and elsewhere always gravitate towards guaranteeing an economy that attracts investment, state institutions that are business friendly and a political will to take all necessary measures towards economic growth. 

After the latest economic crisis and the austerity measures imposed on EU countries to overcome this crisis, the principle that drives political forces is no longer ideology but economic growth. In today’s world the bogeyman is not wearing a red flag with a hammer and sickle imprinted on it, but carrying a balance sheet with a minus at the bottom of it; recession is what our nightmares are made of. 

Whereas there are many economic theories that delve into how to create a healthy economy, the current dominant paradigm leans towards a neo-liberal (laissez-faire) approach. Political decisions are to be directed towards creating a socio-economic environment that encourages and allows businesses to invest and develop as they see fit. Patronisingly the man in the street is told how if business grows, then the economy grows and therefore things will improve for everyone. This trickle down effect is similar to rainfall that trickles down through the trees, the shrubs, the plants and then maybe enough to allow mushrooms to grow. 

I am no expert in economics and therefore cannot discuss the merits of Adam Smith’s system and the principle of the invisible hand, but from an outsider’s point of view, having business lobbies sponsoring political candidates and private companies being closely associated with political parties, does not seem to be much of an invisible hand. When legislation is changed to allow specific lobbies and business ventures to have it their way, one starts to wonder whether the invisible hand only applies to social benefits and workers’ rights. 

The aim of a national government is to steer the state towards improving the lives of its citizens, thus the role of government is to ensure that the benefits produced by the economy and the state are distributed in a fair and just way. Unfortunately, the issue lies in that no one agrees on what is to be considered fair and just. What is fair to person X, may be considered unfair by person Y and vice versa; therefore part of the mandate of any government is to ensure that a balance is created between the needs of the numerous social groups and lobbies. Was this balance and distribution of benefits taken into consideration when approving the Townsquare project? 

Robert Nozick, in his 1974 book ‘Anarchy, State and Utopia’, argues that every citizen has full entitlement to his wages or profits, as long as this is the result of a legal activity; in other words one has no right to criticize or attack the profits made by a business and deem it unethical or anti-social if that activity follows the laws of the jurisdiction where it operates. Profits made by the selling of tobacco products are just, if these are following the legal framework of where they are operating.

The bone of contention here is that construction magnates in Malta have for far too long operated outside the legal framework, and have done so with impunity and the blessing of politicians. When the President of Malta organises events at the infamous Monte Kristo estates, she is unwittingly accepting that these illegally built premises are socially just, and that Polidano brothers have the right to all the benefits produced by this activity. 

Unfortunately the mentality that allows activities like Monte Kristo to exist is widespread and is a plague that keeps affecting more parts of our islands, Delimara being a case in point. When authorities try to enforce the law, they are impeded to do so, either through political interference or by the threat of closing shop and making workers redundant; this ploy has been recently used by Palumbo.

Walking through Sliema is testimony to this abuse, vegetable vendors that increase their shop space by using the pavement to exhibit their produce, tour agents that block the passage with their sandwich sign boards or catering establishments who take up pedestrian space to advertise their menus. All of these activities are illegal, and are making use of public land in a private way, thus these establishments are acting in an unjust manner. Yet, we are encouraged to close an eye, so that business may thrive because we have to be business friendly. 

With regard to the Townsquare project, one cannot use the legal yardstick because it has been approved by the Planning Authority and therefore from Nozick’s point of view should be considered just. Firstly I would like to argue that we need to make a distinction between what is just and what is legal, slavery was legal for hundreds of years and was a profitable industry even for Malta, but can we ever consider slavery as being a just activity.

Secondly, I would like to introduce the ideas of another philosopher, John Rawls, who in 1971 published ‘A Theory of Justice’, where he proposes a very straightforward principle of justice, justice as fairness. Therefore my argument is that the Towsquare project fails to justify itself as being fair on others, and the PA as a national institution had the duty to protect the citizen from this happening.

Rawls argues that, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.” 

Citizens have lost faith in politicians and the institutions because they are deemed to be unfair and thus unjust. Democracy can no longer be held hostage by the promise of eternal economic growth and governments need to widen their interpretation of quality of life and not solely base it on unrealistic economic statistics.