Undoubtedly, these have been tricky days for the Government.  It was thought that after a referendum result that spoke volumes, the Government would take the cue given by the electorate and start advocating with more vigor for the environmental agenda that has been sidelined for the best part of this legislature.  In fact, the Government has focused most of its energy to elude the noose that was tightening around its neck brought about by the disproportionate regularization by MEPA but in the process ignoring cognizance of environmental matters. 

But the writing was on the wall. 

This lack of engagement with the environmental lobby would eventually catch up with the Government because this interest group is an uncompromising agenda setter.  Amongst themselves, the environmental groups may well go for each other’s jugular 24/7 if necessary, but when it comes to issues they deduce as being of a collective nature they are all in the same boat with a vengeance.

And this is what happened in the case of the American University of Malta project, seeming pretty innocuous at the outset but turning out to be a battle ground.

Initially, the news that an investment in the educational sector was coming ‘this way’ was received well especially when the project started to be unrolled, a project that went down nicely especially when the staggering projected investment outlay started being cited. 

Let’s face it. Education is not a new ‘industry’.  The English schools have been doing well for themselves and for the country and the niche’ of having specific under-graduate and post-graduate programmes managed by foreign Universities is picking up well with a number of Maltese students reading Diplomas, Degrees, Masters and PhDs with these institutions.

Conversely following a number of enquiries by private citizens and newspaper investigations on the Sadeen Group business enterprise, concerns soon started popping-up like fireworks. 

The alarm bell started being raised when doubts were rooted on the quality standards of the programme, the level of involvement of the DePaul University, the ‘student market’ it would attract, the benefits or otherwise for potential Maltese students, amongst other.  Being an academic myself, I find competition healthy.  It isn’t an issue of monopolies, of fear, of being plucked out of any comfort zone - I personally do not subscribe to any of those descriptions.  In fact I would not have a difficulty, competing or teaming-up, as I already do with other Universities all over the World in view of enriching my research acumen. 

There shouldn’t be an ‘us’ and ‘them’ argument in all of this and I think it would be wrong to take on a new University to spite a 420 year old institution that provides courses for almost 12,000 students at undergraduate and post-graduate levels including 750 students from more than 80 different countries and all of this compounded with highly reputable academics whose expertise is sought after all over the World.  One cannot deny that there are matters at an academic and administrative level that need to be stepped-up but competition is healthy and as I had an opportunity to say of late, ‘bring it on’.  What a contest does is help propel the best in us.

 

But the obvious bone of contention was the site chosen for this project, a mostly pristine piece of land that if anything needed a clean-up and not bulldozers and heavy machinery trespassing. 

I believe that all the other worries could have been rationalized but whatever argument the Government drifts, using Zonqor to the extent that was originally projected will ricochet.  Whether the argument is about revamping the South or subscribing to the manifesto commitments, whether it’s the spill-over of commerce or the mess previous Governments have made in this same area, whether it’s part of the deal with the investors or not - Zonqor is no justification.

It is as clear as crystal that when in Opposition the Labour Party had a great deal of work done so that once in power it would hit the ground running.  In this sense there is nothing wrong with that, as long as the pledges were not attached to freebies.  Let’s keep in mind that by the end of the previous legislature people were up to their nose seeing every project and initiative the Government was involved in not implemented on time, over-ran in terms of expenditure and departments, authorities and civil servants were renowned for stalling the process rather than facilitating it - and to add insult to injury you get alleged howlers like the Mater Dei Hospital structure fiasco. 

Now you can criticize this Government on many grounds but in these two years at least an effort has been made to try to accelerate and take things forward.  Social services, the economy, employment, financial services and several other areas have witnessed steady and consistent improvement.  If people choose to deny these facts I think it means they need to pull their head out of the sand.

But I am concerned on three issues at the moment in the way Government is operating. 

Firstly, it is wide of the mark to assume that people automatically agree blindly to the positions taken by Government because of the votes amassed during the last election.  Majorities, however large, do not give the Government any leverage to do as they please without taking into consideration how the citizens are responding to a particular issue.

Secondly, I can’t believe I would be saying this, but the greatest problem that has emerged from this situation is that this Government is having trouble communicating. That silly man gesticulating like a barmy during the press conference at the Office of the Prime Minister when the Heads of Agreement was being signed, epitomizes it.  The Government is currently unable to communicate clearly and coherently its positions – it is all over the place, using flawed strategies, wrong symbols, bad timing and this is making it terribly arduous for the Government to be understood.

Thirdly, whilst I do understand that the Prime Minister is keen to get things done, I don’t concur that we should have a Prime Minister who is also a negotiator, envoy, mediator and salesperson all at once.  This model of governance is unhealthy, and we have seen the fall-out in the Malta Citizenship by Investment Programme, the Premier Café debacle and now the American University of Malta.  I believe that a Prime Minister’s role is to govern, to egg on and give direction and to converge politics with quality of life, standard of living and the economy.  It is up to his ministers, advisors and civil Servants to get the job done.  I cannot envisage how a Prime Minster can have the mental and physical capacity to be involved at this level – it’s a killer and apart from that he needs to have space to deal with the end product and the trouble shooting.  Apart from that I think that the Prime Minister needs to protect his office, to encourage his Ministers and push them to trade and bring in the investment. His role is not to broker deals but to make sure that the political dimension of the mission is being safeguarded.  He is the one who has the duty to gel all of this together.  The message that risks coming across is that the Prime Minister doesn’t trust in the ability of his Ministers or else he is short on talent (we’ve heard that one before) which I hardly believe is the case.

The debate on Zonqor point has been made and I strongly believe that the Government must and eventually will, succumb to the avalanche’ of criticism, condemnation and disapproval that is coming from every direction. 

I do understand that this University was pledged and it was promised for the South, however plonking it at Zonqor ‘ghax  l-ohrajn hekk ghamlu’ or because the investor wants a campus with those specifications is not on.  We know that every piece of land that we give up will not be returned however smart and intelligent the architects and civil engineers are.  Once the construction starts there is no turning back. 

If any good has come out of this situation is that people have put on their ‘green hat’ and the Government is probably spoilt for choice now in terms of alternative sites.  Missing out on this investment shouldn’t be an option on the table and I believe that the PN needs to focus on pushing for alternatives and not to stall the project, ‘halli inkunu irbhna’.  I feel that if this debate leads us to miss out on such an investment it will be terrible and asinine. 

The moral of this column is that ‘the my-way or no-way politics’ is no longer on the list - and this applies to both parties. 

Politics is about compromises, conciliation and finding the middle-ground.