Life has to be driven by assumptions, as time is too short to verify every single thing. Assumptions help us process information quickly, thus making life easier to live. Or do they?

They do if and only if the assumptions turn out to be true. Let’s look at some assumptions that might actually be false.

I will obviously not be tackling assumptions that matter only for small sectors of the population, even if for those sectors such assumptions might be life-changing. For instance, we assume that Arab-speakers understand Maltese – there have even been court cases in which this assumption was accepted as representative of the truth. As a matter of fact, whereas Maltese cuts from the Arabic cloth, the clothes it tailors are sewn differently from those of the Arabs. The assumption is therefore wrong. But, as it concerns only a small sector, we’ll not go into it and similar assumptions. Let’s instead focus on assumptions that concern the entire population.

Most of these assumptions are held and acted upon with unbelievable intensity. But often they’re wrong. For instance, that politicians speak the truth all of the time. There are apologists who obviously don’t believe such nonsense but keep polluting the newspapers and news portals with their defence of the indefensible. These are apologists, and therefore not really credible. But then there are others who are not apologists and sincerely believe this assumption to be true and can’t find it within themselves to overcome tribal loyalty, stop believing lying politicians, and choose the good of the nation.

The most offending assumption of all is, to my mind, that there are no limits to growth. Many – even sincerely – believe that we can keep pursuing economic growth like there’s no tomorrow. This is based on the optimism gospel spread by economists that businesses can keep finding alternative sources of energy and creating new products that can allow growth without depleting all natural resources. In fact, this is but one assumption replacing another. Ultimately, both assumptions are based on the baseless belief that resources are infinite, or, if finite, that they can be renewed fast enough to satisfy demand. To my mind, the antidote to this clearly false assumption is not to believe in the economic miracle (growth) that will redeem the world’s population from poverty, but to redistribute wealth.

Instead of striving to redistribute wealth, there’s this constant effort to embrace the assumption that foreign labour can be imported endlessly. It’s assumed that poverty cannot be effectively tackled, meaning that there will always be a boundless pool of poor people ready to emigrate and work for extremely low wages, and that therefore importation of foreign workers can go on indefinitely. But it’s more than obvious that Malta is too small for an unbridled application of the theory that importing more and more workers will keep fuelling our economic growth forever. Not even if land reclamation were the solution and another 316 square kilometres were to rise out of the sea. The fact remains that the solution lies in increasing quality, not quantity – via education and the importation of a different type of immigrant, with a higher, different skill set.  

The huge influx of foreign workers adds the need for accommodation. This has somehow given birth to the assumption that tourism will not be affected by overdevelopment. The people responsible for urban planning seem oblivious to the idea of aesthetics – so the country is not just submerged in new buildings, but these new buildings are extremely, offensively ugly. How it can be assumed that this aesthetic degradation will have no effect on tourism – one of the top five contributors to our economy (30% of the GDP) – is beyond comprehension.

Ugliness takes two forms: material and moral. Of material ugliness we have just spoken. Moral ugliness is corruption, mostly that on the macro-level. There’s this inexplicable assumption that corruption does not take its toll on national credibility. This assumption fuels the unrealistic optimism keeping this Administration in power... the unrealistic belief that corruption does not cause reputational damage which in turn does not dent the attractiveness of the country for foreign-direct investment. This assumption does not correspond to empirical findings. In one article I’ve recently read called “The Impact of Corruption on a Country’s FDI Attractiveness”, I have found this: “Empirical results of this study suggest that corruption generally causes a harmful effect on attracting FDI”. This should demolish all assumptions that corruption and economic growth are not related. Corruption actually hinders economic growth – the same economic growth which it is assumed has no limits and for which more foreign labour is required for whom more accommodation is required for which more ugly, soulless buildings need to be erected in the certainty that this will not damage the tourism sector.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions ...

And then one penultimate, fundamental assumption: less support for the PL will necessarily mean more support for the PN. There’s very little empirical support for this assumption so far. It seems that while the population is increasingly understanding the downside to Labour’s formula, and is steadily beginning to consider withdrawing its support, there isn’t a corresponding increase in support for the PN. Some will blame it on the current leader, arguing (albeit sotto voce) that a new leader would be achieving different results in these same circumstances. I do not think that this is an accurate assessment. This sort of “Messianism” – which believes that the leader alone can make the miracle and save the PN and the country – is also not realistic. I think the problems are deeper, and more reform is needed, on many levels.

There’s a last assumption: that a third party will form out of thin air to capitalise on Labour’s electoral losses caused by Labour’s intimacy with the capitalist cause. By betraying the working class and establishing an adulterous relationship with Big Business, Labour has managed to alienate many of its traditional supporters. It is being assumed that this betrayal will help conceive and give birth to a third (electable) political force.

This could indeed take place. But I’m not sure we’re seeing the signs of such a development. It is more probable that “foot voting” will take place and the disillusioned will simply stay at home on polling day. For the individual voter, this strategy is more expedient given the logic of the Maltese political system and less costly in terms of energy, social capital, etc. Then again, this is an assumption I am making – and I will have to see if it turns out to be empirically correct.