They met for eight hours, but is this enough to resolve the problems that exist? They have talked about ways and means to be more efficient and bring about the necessary changes that are needed to give the country a push, but will there be a solution that is agreed to by all?
The social partners that form the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development had a lot to ponder about in a marathon session held to discuss the future of an institution that has not delivered as much as was expected of it.
The failure to reach a social pact in spite of lengthy discussions held over a period of time between late 2004 and early 2005 has thrown the future of the MCESD into jeopardy. It has been described as a talking-shop that has been unable to deliver. Now it is up to all the council members to pull their socks up and come to terms on the future of the MCESD and, more importantly, the future of the country.
Whether the report, to be drawn up by Joseph F. X. Zahra on the said meeting, will help to find a solution remains to be seen.
Mr Zahra was appointed external rapporteur of the meeting, a move that in itself shows good intentions. But the outcome of such a report, and especially the members’ reaction to it, is still very much in the balance. It is only when the report and reactions to it come to be that we will know. And the public has a right to know.
The council is made up of the government, employers’ organisations and trade unions, and its aims are to promote social dialogue and make recommendations to the government on national economic and social issues.
The consensus issue is one of the hottest potatoes at hand.
The council has to act as one whole on matters of national interest, but across-the-board agreement has been hard to come by and many a time discussions faltered as one or more members did not stand side by side with the others on the issues at hand.
Several suggestions have been made, including the possibility of introducing majority voting. Other unions and organisations have claimed they have a right to form part of the MCESD.
So, what will the future be?
So far, it is evident that the various organisations that make up the MCESD have been more inclined to consider their own interests rather than those of the whole nation.
And this line of reasoning has been the main culprit in the failure of negotiations.
In all aspects of life it is a matter of give and take, but this concept has never worked in the MCESD.
It has often been the case when agreement was not forthcoming because one or more members did not see the overall picture, preferring to concentrate on what suits them best instead of trying to understand what is good for the whole country.
If this scenario persists, it is difficult to see a bright future for the MCESD.
If members continue to seek the interests of only the sectors they represent, then the institution will never be successful in reaching the aims for which it was set up.
It is only if the members realise that by giving something up today they will secure a better future that the MCESD will be deemed as being an asset to the whole country.
It is the long-term effect that MCESD members must look at, not the short-term gain, which might prove to be detrimental over a longer period of time.
The social pact that was discussed at length for many weeks did not come to be because of intransigence. It is hoped that lessons have been learnt from this, and that past mistakes are not repeated.