The more I see how things are now developing, here and abroad, increasingly the temptation is to conclude that political initiative is taking the shape of cultural manoeuvering. It adds up to an effort by which decisions reached in the political sphere aim to sustain the sentiment of superiority over the rest of the country felt by certain strata of the society.
Such a conclusion would contradict the materialist theses of Marxism, for instance. On their basis, the determining factors for decisions would relate to dominance over the economic apparatus and over how the material wealth being created is allocated.
In Malta, incessant attempts are being carried out to undermine the country’s financial services sector. This could end up destroying the livelihood of people quite close to the leaders of this ongoing campaign. Still none of them have said that enough is enough.
Perhaps this happens because while they understand that they will be the first to suffer if the economic advantage they benefit from now is wiped out, still the same people consider too that as a result, there would again be a revival of their “cultural” dominance, which has been greatly downsized in recent decades.
***
Institutional changes
In Brussels, people still strongly believe that this is the best of times – while the European economy seems to be gaining traction and when populism is “under control” – for new initiatives to be taken in order to strengthen the EU’s management structures. The Commission has just presented another document which lists what can be done to implement “needed” institutional changes.
Its proposals are aligned with those of the European Parliament (or a majority therein) for they maintain that the spitzenkandidat of that party which elects most MEPs to the European Parliament should head the next Commission as its President. I doubt very much whether in the European Council the feeling goes so strongly in this direction.
More questionable is the Commission’s proposal for its own future President to be also appointed President of the European Council. Such a procedure would concentrate too much power within the Commission and seems to me to be premature, indeed plain wrong.
***
Is it better with the euro?
Having taken part last week in public discussions about Malta and the euro, I met people who asked me – have we done any better with the euro (as our currency)? The reply depends on what one wants to understand by “better”.
Does it mean that the euro has made the majority of the Maltese population feel good? That they enjoy today living standards much superior to what they had previously and which would not have been achievable without the euro?
Does it mean that the euro has given rise to a climate of economic and finanancial security which was inexistent previously, so that the island’s economy has made progress it would not have been able to achieve without the euro?
Does it mean that the euro has opened up new opportunities for people and the economy, while easily boosting government finances and social conditions in the country at large?
There two ways by which to respond to these questions.
One could stick to the dogma about the euro one believes in, pro or con. Alternatively, one could critically review all that has happened in the eurozone and in the Maltese economy during the last ten years.