Trade union representatives have recently been invited to participate in discussions on a new constitutional document and I am very interested to know what they will propose. Will they propose economic human rights, the human right not to be poor?
In our political-economic system, isn’t wealth a choice? That is to say, isn’t one free to become rich if one wants to? Isn’t this the basic notion of capitalism? Doesn’t capitalism assume that all men (and women) are born free from legal shackles and therefore free to become rich if they work hard enough?
Workers’ rights
These are, in their crudest form, the basic philosophical principles underlying a liberal democracy – liberal in the sense of the freedom to become rich if you work hard enough. This would also explain why our republic is built on work. You are free to work for yourself and therefore free to become rich.
This necessarily means that if you do not become rich, then it is your fault: you did not exercise your freedom, the freedom that a liberal democracy ensures you are entitled to and can enjoy if you so wish, and this from the moment you are born. All human rights can be understood as corollaries to this implicit basic principle.
This is why the Civil Codes of the 19th century were called liberal Civil Codes, and were understood as implements for constitutional principles because, unlike the civil laws of the former system, the liberal Civil Codes contained laws that ensured that everybody – irrespective of one’s birth – was free to become wealthy.
The poor, therefore, are poor because of their own choice; they fail to exercise the freedom given to them by the system and to become rich.
Socialism was the retort to this philosophy and trade-unionism one of the reactions to raw capitalism: if they unite, workers can obtain better working conditions from employers. However, the trade union movement could not overcome the basic philosophy of capitalism, namely that you are free to become rich.
Obviously, as opposed to the former system in which the nobility and other notables enjoyed advantages which the commoner did not. For instance, a nobleman could pay back his debts under less onerous conditions than the commoner, giving the former an unfair advantage over the latter. Liberalism brought a level playing field: all economic actors would be subject to the same laws, and privileges barred.
In this philosophical outlook, everybody has the right to become wealthy. In theory, everybody can start a business and, if they are smart and lucky, become rich.
In this logic, it follows that the poor are poor because they do not avail themselves of the freedom to become rich.
But we know that this is not entirely true. It is not the case that all the poor are poor because they are lazy. Some poor people are simply unlucky: their business might have been wiped out by an economic crisis; they might have been victims of a mental or physical disease; they might not be particularly bright; their business idea or model might be wrong... All this is already envisaged by capitalism: it is ultimately ‘the survival of the fittest’. The obvious question is: so what happens to the less fit; do they disappear?
For these and other reasons, I really wonder what the trade unions can bring to the table. If they argue successfully that economic human rights should be introduced – the fundamental right not to be poor – then they will have scored an enormous victory to reduce poverty in this country.
Will they ask that the new Constitution contain provisions to protect workers from further automation? A few days ago, the BBC reported that “up to 20 million manufacturing jobs around the world could be replaced by robots by 2030, according to analysis firm Oxford Economics”.
As the current Administration has wholeheartedly embraced neo-liberalism, I am sceptical.
Neo-liberalism has seduced the Left. The Left espoused identity politics causes, now even to nauseating extremes. For instance, now that homosexuals can marry people of their own sex (homosexuals could always marry people from the other sex; it was never prohibited), do we still need the Gay Pride? This is an exaggeration meant to divert society’s attention from the needs of the poor – and of the workers, who are not exactly in the category of ‘the poor’, but might soon slide downwards.
And it could not be otherwise. If you look at recent history you will realise that two things have happened in the post-1989, post-Berlin Wall world. Before I continue: I was – and still am – no fan of the USSR. It’s a good thing that the Soviet Union is no longer but it’s not an entirely good thing. There have been side-effects which, I believe, have not been properly tackled by the West.
The demise of the Soviet Union meant that any brake on neo-liberal tendencies in the West ceased to exist. These tendencies did not sprout overnight – they had been maturing over many years – but the end of the USSR meant that they could now blossom unhindered, which they did.
Then when the Communist bloc disintegrated, and the new markets of Eastern Europe opened up to the West’s capital, there was a clear need to pay for the (re)construction of the East, diverting over there the wealth of the West. It was clear that the post-WWII boom was destined to end: the workers had to pay for the West’s victory in the Cold War.
As if purposely to keep the workers distracted, the 1990s saw a crescendo in identity politics. Not only gay rights, but also the transgender agenda started encroaching on public discourse, little by little replacing the worker-rights agenda. The dominant ideology started to promote the transgender agenda, whereas workers’ rights fell to second – if not third – place.
It is no surprise, therefore, that a pro-worker philosopher such as Slavoj ?i?ek, who has also studied psychoanalysis, should recently argue that from a Freudian point of view, trans-genderism makes little psychoanalytical sense. Indeed, there is a problem with having to accept the self-perception of a person, when that self-perception does not tally with reality. A (wo)man feels (s)he is a (wo)man, and society should humour him/her. So if somebody feels they are a cat, a dog, a Martian, Napoleon, should society humour him/her as well? A lot of energy is being diverted toward these “studies” at the expense of workers’ rights.
The environment
The present constitutional document did foresee a limit to the implicit right to become rich: it is found in the State’s duty to protect the environment (Chapter 2 of the current constitutional document).
Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the environment, which is why the Greens sit on the Left in a typical parliamentary assembly. The Greens might not necessarily be interested in workers’ rights, like the Socialists, but like the Socialists they dislike capitalism because, from their perspective, it destroys the environment.
Among other things, liberalism means the economic freedom to exploit the environment and natural resources. This freedom is so basic to capitalism that governments cannot get themselves to act effectively to curb CO2 emissions. My own opinion is that climate change is partly caused by industrialisation and partly by natural causes. I hold this opinion because there have been numerous ice ages in the past, before industrialisation. Still, it is clear that the burning of fossil fuels does contribute to the planet’s warming and this has to be remedied. How to remedy it, when capitalism is the economic system, based on the exploitation of the environment? Even the communists have become capitalists! (China.)
In the case of Malta, if you expect to see pro-environment action from Joseph Brancaleone Muscat, forget it! (Brancaleone is not a reference to the surname, but to a vintage Italian movie, which has now attained cult status – L’Armata Brancaleone; in English: For Love and Gold.)
Just look at the construction “industry” debacle to understand Dr Muscat’s environmental credentials. First he allowed all-out exploitation (even promising a probably-useless Gozo-Malta tunnel to have enough material for land reclamation) and now he wants to introduce discipline overnight because his laissez-faire free-for-all ultra-neo-liberalism has caused a veritable national cataclysm!
(Historical/ironic parenthesis. Many have noted that the family that lost their home because of the wall that collapsed, had a photo of Joseph Muscat in their kitchen. This seems to be an old tradition: when Samuel Taylor Coleridge was secretary to Alexander Ball’s government in the early years of the British occupation, he remarked that the simple folk kept a picture of the Virgin Mary and a sketch of Captain Ball in their kitchens. This prompts me to speculate whether the Maltese still view the Prime Minister as the heir of the Governor, who in turn was the heir of the Grand Master.)
Neutrality
I remember some 20 years ago, when he was still Labour Deputy Leader, President George Vella proclaimed a beautiful phrase: “Malta supperva!” – “Proud Malta!”
Malta supperva in the sense of her neutrality.
Now, some years back Joseph Muscat toyed with the idea of doing away with neutrality. Then he stopped playing.
Will the new constitutional document retain the neutrality clause? My question is not airy-fairy. As a matter of fact, our neutrality is of the pragmatic type – our safety is guaranteed by Italy. I believe that the politico-military implications are clear.
However, our neutrality is not only in our interests (it would avoid the destruction we experienced in the early 1940s – even though what the Luftwaffe bombers non fecerunt, fecerunt the “developers”). Our neutrality is also in the interests of the big powers. Small states such as ours should not exist in a logical world. But in a world of realpolitik, small states exist for the benefit of the big ones. A small state that is also neutral is useful to the big states as it can serve as an intermediary and/or interlocutor.
The other alternative is to become a naval base again. Our ancestors fought against this tooth and nail. The Maltese were never happy with the ‘Fortress Colony’ role imposed by the British. I am sure we would not be happy to become a Fortress again. Neutrality is a much more intelligent path to follow, with benefits for us and for the big powers.
When I look at Dr Muscat’s foreign policy, however, I am utterly not impressed. Look at the dog’s breakfast he’s made of our relationship with Italy. He put all of his eggs in one basket – he befriended Matteo Renzi and when Mr Renzi’s stint came to an end, Dr Muscat found it difficult to find common ground with Mr Renzi’s successor, Matteo Salvini. I am sure that Dr Muscat did not follow the advice from seasoned advisers who, following Italian politics, know they are volatile. If he followed Keith Schembri’s advice, it shows shallowness of judgment. If he followed nobody’s advice, then it’s even worse.
Dr Muscat’s foreign policy has probably been his weakest point, even weaker than his record on the environment and traffic management, national image management, and other debacles. Indeed, apart from so-called ‘civil rights’, Dr Muscat’s legacy will be quite mediocre, not to say depressing.
One hopes that Dr Muscat will listen to people like Alex Sciberras Trigona, who was heavily involved in the genesis and evolution of the neutrality clause. The country needs neutrality. It would be stupid to let neutrality go.
My Personal Library (55)
I borrowed many of the ideas on workers’ rights from Italian philosopher Diego Fusaro. Some of his books have been translated into English and trade unionists should read them and possibly even invite Professor Fusaro to give a talk in Malta.
There are also a number of books on economic human rights, which argue possible ways forward.
Malta has made headlines for LGBT rights; now it should attract international attention for its protection of workers’ rights and for alleviating the plight of the poor. I am sure these principles are close to President Vella’s heart.