The liberal ideology defining the free market has ended up dominating economic management. Meanwhile, the idea gained ground that for the market to really deliver  the correct outcomes  according to the principles of free competiton, an authority or authorities needed to be established in order to ensure that market competiton principles are not abused.

The regulatory function has thus become an integral part of modern governance. Controversies have never abated about how strong it should be. In general, right wing parties have emphasized the need to make it less burdensome, for in their view, it creates an excess of bureaucracy. Left wing parties insist on the need for more rules to ensure the protection of consumers and workers.

The criticism has also arisen that regulatory agencies carry out tasks and decide on matters that more properly belong to the courts, even as they do not provide the safeguards which the courts do, that guarantee justice.

In Malta as well, regulation has become well established. Since we joined the EU, it has followed models devised in Brussels. Here regulatory action has still not reached a sufficiently robust and effective level. As I see it, the reason for this goes beyond the point that that the small size of the society effectively hampers the setting up of operations that are transparent and free of all outside interference.

***

SOCIAL MARKET

In the economic-political scenario that evolved over time, at least in Europe, alongside the spread in the commitment to a free market, the idea of a “social market” also got pushed. It was a viewpoint prevalent among demochristian parties anxious to remain coherent in their backing for capitalism with Catholic views about social justice. In a capitalist system, market trasactions did not just have to reflect the economic value of what got traded but they had also to take on board its “social” value. 

Given the momentum it attained as a concept, liberalism soon left far behind the “social market”. Meanwhile, European socialists had started to accept the free market as a staple of economic management and they became less cynical about the relevance of the “social” market. In some cases they even made use of the concept to create with right wing political forces coalitions that intended to launch moderate social reforms. Also as a result, a political centre was created in Europe that eventually gave rise to a number of coalition governments of the “centre”.

***        

POLITICAL MEETINGS

It is true that attendance at political meetings has dipped greatly. Apart from the point that perhaps, the interest in them has declined generally, some say that this began to happen when they started to be broadcast. For why should one travel all over the island to attend them, when if one is really interested, it is still possbile to see and listen to what’s going on directly from home?

The argument makes sense. However the broadcasting of political events has had another numbing impact that is not so well recognised.

Political meetings now have to be organised like they are television programmes, with a strict attention to duration so as not to disrupt TV schedules; with prearranged inputs; and audience regimentation to the extent that those attending are cued for when to applaud.

This has resulted in the loss of spontaneity with much of what goes on becoming run of the mill and too monotonous.