|
MCESD - A MORE ACTIVE ROLE
IN CIVIAL SOCIETY
Benny Borg
Bonello
The initial
structure
The Malta
Council for Economic Development (MCED) was set up in the
1989. It was primarily intended to bring the social
partners together to deal with the main economic issues
especially industrial relations. The need for such a
structure was especially felt during the Phoenicia trauma
that resulted from misunderstanding, distrust and
miscalculation. It was felt that such a structure
bringing the three social partners, the government, the
employers and the unions, together would help avert future
confrontation.
This
structure was in line with a developing trend in Malta for
social dialogue which has been going on for years. The
advantages of such a body were that it had the main
industrial relations actors present, it served as a medium
for communication between these actors especially on
occasions of industrial strife and it could influence the
government while not being part of the government itself.
Most of all, the social partners were satisfied with it.
It faced two main problems. One was the lack of resources
and the other was that it never featured as an ongoing
useful structure to the government until there was some
crisis in industrial relations. Yet, all three social
partners wanted such a mechanism which could be used to
defuse serious situations. It was true that they
recognised certain shortcomings but their criticism was
always aimed at improving the structure rather than to do
away with it.
The
Forum
The structure, based on the
idea of social dialogue, was accepted by both main
political parties. The Labour Party, however, saw certain
shortcomings and wanted to develop it on wider, more
modern and democratic lines. It recognised that the civil
society had developed to such an extent that it could
provide a representative voice for different interests and
sectors of society. Thus, the idea was to have a wider
body dealing with economic and social issues. The Forum
for a Better Economy was the answer.
However,
there was resistance from the other social partners to
have a wider body. It was felt that, if wider interests
were to form part of such as structure, the structure
might lose its focus and the social partners might lose
their importance through dilution. Moreover, some of the
partners felt that they themselves represented also the
wider interests of society and thus the structure was
democratic enough and there was no need for wider
representation.
Thus a
compromise was found between the two positions. A two
Council
structure was set up in July 1997 where the MCED still
held on to its structure and original role. However, the
second Council, the Advisory Council, had much wider
representation. The Advisory Council had its own Chairman
and life of its own. The Chairman of the Malta Council
for Economic Development also attended these meetings
though other contact between the two structures was
sparse.
The
Advisory Council had wide representation from different
Ministries, government appointed advisory bodies and NGOs
relevant to the task that it was entrusted with.
The
Advisory Council was entrusted to prepare an outline of a
Plan for Economic Development within a year. There were
three main areas which were considered - general strategic
considerations, specifically Malta as a hub and
competition from neighbouring countries, the public sector
and its role in future development and the quality of life
and social issues. Wide consultation, especially with
NGOs, took place to gather information and thus integrate
a wide perspective of ideas. It should be noted that the
response from the departments was not that forthcoming
while there was resistance from the then Planning
Authority as it was felt that planning was its own role
and the Forum was usurping this responsibility. In fact,
when data was requested from the Planning Authority,
payment was requested.
However,
within one year the plan was ready and Value 2000 was
published. The report was widely accepted. As the then
Opposition also accepted Value 2000, there was no
controversy about it and thus like anything
non-controversial in Malta, soon died a natural death.
The Forum
later expanded and an Economic Policy Council was added to
the structure. Its role was changing rapidly but, for the
purpose of this article, there is no need to delve into
more detail.
The present
structure
Another
change in government in 1998 brought about another step
forward. An Act was enacted by Parliament in 2001 setting
up the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD).
As it is, the structure is a two-tier one – the Council
for Economic and Social Development and a Committee for
the Civil Society were set up. The Council is the higher
body and is composed of the social partners. The
Committee is made up of representatives of the civil
society. The legislation also defines social partners and
civil society. The definition of the ‘social partners’
used in the legislation is mainstream and includes the
representatives of government, the workers and the
employers.
The reason
for this is that the original Council was devised as a
structure to handle economic issues, especially industrial
relations. It was found that it was a good structure and
that is why it survived even without any legislative
backing and meagre support. That is also why dealing with
economic and industrial relations should be one of the
roles of the Council.
The present
legislation also defines ‘civil society’. According to
the present legislation civil society "includes all those
organisations of persons established to seek the common
good and whose main aims are neither to generate profits
nor to seek executive power". It excludes political
parties but it includes NGOs. However, it also includes
government appointed bodies which are not NGOs and, thus,
does not fall within the widely accepted definition of
civil society.
The Active
Citizenship Network which presently is managing an EU
project "Citizens for the New Europe" defines civil
society as including those organisations - whatever their
scope, size, juridical status, motivation, membership
which are self-created and self-managed by citizens. Such
an organisation operates on a mainly voluntary basis, it
is active in the area of public policies and aims at
protecting citizens' rights and/or taking care of the
common good. It does not seek profit and acts for the
general interest rather than its members' particular
interests. It is independent both from political parties
and private entities.
If strict
adherence is made to the widely accepted definition, then
only the National Youth Council and the Consumers
Association would fit in. The Local Council Association
would not fit in as it represents local government and
acts on behalf of the local councils. The National
Council for the Elderly, the National Commission Persons
with Disability and the Commission for the Advancement of
Women are all government appointed bodies and thus do not
represent civil society.
This does
not mean that they do not have a role to play within the
MCESD.
The role of the
Civil Society Committee
In the
present structure, the Council, made up of the three
social partners, appoints the Committee as long as it
includes the permanent members. The Council also has the
power to set the rules of procedure which regulate the
Committee and establish the quorum at meetings thereof.
There is no
role specifically assigned to the Committee. The
Committee "shall be consulted on all those issues which
the Council may, in its discretion, refer to it."
To date the Council has not consulted the Committee on any
issue. In fact, if one were to assess the functioning of
the Civil Society Committee and be objective, the
performance of this Committee has been dismal. The
members of the Committee are not at fault.
The Civil
Society Committee met six times since its first meeting in
October 2001. The only achievement of this Committee, in
these two years, was that the membership of this Committee
was expanded since all realised that if no further NGOs
are included the name of the Committee would be a
misnomer. However, it is with consternation I note that
the environmental NGOs have not yet been included, in
spite of the fact that the Consumers' Association, at the
first meeting of the Committee, requested this.
This is a
far cry from the impact that the Civil Society groups had
in similar structures in other countries and also in the
EU Economic and Social Committee. These groups gave a
very positive contribution because the structure and the
role assigned to them permitted their active participation
in all matters.
The next step
forward
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. An important
characteristic in this country, which stems out, is the
culture of social dialogue. I emphasise the point that
for social dialogue, to be effective, 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 co-operation 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 i.e. 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.
A new role?
Should the
MCESD 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 since 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 presently 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. The Consumers' Association since the
first meeting of the Civil Society Committee proposed that
both senior citizens organisations and NGO's 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.
|
