There are two main forms of participation: integrative or antagonistic. Integrative is when a body has direct representation and shares in policymaking and decision taking. Antagonistic is when direct representation is denied and representation is done from outside. Not antagonistic in the sense of belligerent, but as an influence from outside.
The constituted bodies representing employers – GRTU, FOI, Chamber of Commerce, MEA and MHRA – and the major trade unions – GWU, UHM, and CMTU – are the social partners at law together with the government sitting on Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD). Can these bodies refuse responsibility or a share of the responsibility of the acts or non-acts of MCESD? They cannot. All social partners are responsible because it is an integrative form of participation. These bodies do not simply speak from outside because they are inside. There are other factors and other responsibilities but the bodies themselves cannot deny co-responsibility for the merits or demerits of MCESD.
The same applies to other statutory boards, councils, or authorities where the social partners sit in an integrative form of participation. FOI, GRTU, Chamber of Commerce and Gozo Business Chamber cannot deny co-responsibility for the policies of Malta Enterprise. Their representative sits on the Board of Malta Enterprise and they share in the decision process of Malta Enterprise.
Similarly, FOI, GRTU, Chamber of Commerce, MEA, GWU, UHM and CMTU cannot deny co-responsibility with the government for what is decided on the Employment Relations Board. They decide together, so they have co-responsibility.
GRTU cannot accept any responsibility whatsoever for decisions taken by the Board of Employment and Training Corporation (ETC) or the Board of the Malta Tourism Authority (MTA) and MCAST. While other employers’ representative organisations are directly represented on these boards, Minister Louis Galea has persistently refused GRTU a representation, even though GRTU is Malta’s largest registered employers’ organisation. GRTU does make representations to these boards but as an outsider. Its representations to these boards is antagonistic not integrative. The decisions are taken by those directly represented on these boards. They, not GRTU, carry co-responsibility. GRTU, as a standard line of policy, is not keen to sit on boards where its presence is a determinant factor in the decision making process. But where GRTU is present we do not refrain from accepting our share of responsibility.
Is all this so difficult for MHRA to understand? Was there a logical reason for MHRA to make such a fuss and sound so belligerent towards GRTU because Vince Farrugia dared say on behalf of GRTU that we believe MHRA ought to accept co-responsibility for the many wrong decisions taken by the now defunct National Tourism Organisation of Malta (NTOM) and its successor, MTA? GRTU does not have, indeed it was refused, representation on MTA and on the board of its predecessor NTOM. MHRA is not only in an integrative status at MTA, but is the major social partner to government on tourism strategies and management. Can they deny co-responsibility for what happens in tourism management resulting from the decisions of MTA? And isn’t MTA the major deciding authority on tourism in Malta?
The GRTU believes that MHRA cannot deny this responsibility. The Minister of Tourism strongly relies, indeed he is obliged to rely on MTA advice. MTA in turn is highly dependent on MHRA. Was there really a reason why MHRA freaked-out so loudly and sounded so belligerent towards the GRTU, and in particular Vince Farrugia the Director General of GRTU for stating the obvious? MHRA may have a different opinion on what defines responsibility, but they had no right to attack the GRTU’s Director General personally in a statement loaded with lies, insinuations and vindictiveness.
GRTU’s position on tourism is clear. Malta in the last years was at the crossroads. The market was changing rapidly. Malta needed to take good professional stock of the situation and it was imperative that the best brains and the best experts be employed to act fast and decisively. Malta could not afford valuable loss of time in silly bickering. Malta’s national tourism managers were most times incapacitated as the changes proceeded with orders and counter-orders that disheartened even the toughest. Precious time and energy was wasted during these crucial last four years in reforming, restructuring and turning everything around with regard to policies, structures, management, foreign offices, senior offices and marketing. When the story of what happened behind the doors of the Ministry of Tourism and at MTA over the last four years is written, people will know whether Vince Farrugia was right to state on behalf of GRTU what he so forcefully stated last week.
GRTU has no doubts that MHRA strives hard to get the best for tourism according to the policies they believe is best for their members. Indeed, GRTU has consistently, through its Director General and through the president of our Tourism and Leisure Division Philip Fenech, pledged its support to MHRA. But when stating this, GRTU cannot be understood to be giving MHRA a blank cheque and absolving it of responsibility for what it does or does not do on MTA. GRTU has great responsibilities when it comes to tourism as it has hundreds, if not thousands, of members for whom tourism earnings are very, very important. GRTU also has the right not only to express its views, even when these differ from MHRA’S, but to strive relentlessly to have the government endorse what our members consider to be in their, and Malta’s, best interests. What we do not strive to do is what MHRA tried to do this week, which is to tell another national constituted body how to manage its internal affairs.
The concluding and major point I want to emphasise is responsibility. When decisions are taken someone must be accountable. Why accept to sit on boards if responsibility for decisions taken is denied? Are representative bodies correct if they accept board membership without responsibility for the decisions of these authorities? This is the question MHRA had to answer and not question Vince Farrugia’s authority.
GRTU’S major concern is that someone must bear the responsibility for the highly unacceptable state of tourism today. What has materialised today is the end result of a sum total of bad decisions, bad policies, bad marketing and bad national tourism management. The major responsibility lies with the Minister. GRTU has stated most vociferously what we believe about this. But all others in an integrative participative decision-making position cannot deny their share of responsibility too.
MHRA may not like this statement. But this is what accountability is all about.
Mr Abela is president of the GRTU: Malta Chamber for SMEs