An interesting aspect of present-day political discourse everywhere is how "reform" in the singular or plural happens to be among the most frequently used words. The word is being used so often that its meaning has possibly been devalued.

In many instances, "reform" signifies the reversal of policies which would have been introduced some years back, also by riding on a reform slogan. One gets the impression that the same is happening with current political slogans about reforms meant to revive the economic competitiveness of this or that. Political forces of the right revel in such discourse, but not only they.

When one analyzes what they intend doing with reforms to improve competitiveness, one finds that basically the plan is to remove laws passed some time ago, which among others, were meant to safeguard the environment, to protect consumers or to promote ethical conduct in the management of enterprises. The excuse would be that such laws have given rise to too much bureaucracy and to excessive operational costs.

***

DEFENCE

Issued a week ago, the White Paper presented by the European Commission and the High European Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security is interesting and covers a lot of ground. It is a main link in the chain of decisions  being adopted by which the European Union is getting transformed into a military alliance.

There can be little doubt that the document will eventually be strongly supported by a majority of Union members who have been traumatised by the Ukraine war and perhaps even more, by the positions which the American Trump administration has been adopting with regards to Europe's military security.

In such a situation, it may be natural that a set mentality comes to predominate, jelling around the belief that "we are the good and the perfect against those who because we are their betters, wish us all evil", with Russia in the vanguard. What however is missing in the White Paper and in the statements arriving from Brussels, is some kind of vision, from the European perspective, about the "ideal" relations that there should be between Europe, Russia, China and indeed not least, the US. Where NATO is involved, the statements made up to now have hardly been anything better than running on the spot. It's as if no long term vision exists about the future of European security.

***

GOVERNMENT TENDERS

Since time immemorial, all tenders for contracts in big (even small) capital investment projects launched by the government have always been contested when a "final" decision is reached. Appeals and protests get made alleging inappropriate management of the tender system, incorrect evaluation of the offers received, favouritism, corruption, abuse of power etc., etc., etc. Over the years, as far as I can remember, only one decision remained uncontested.

I am surprised how no government has up to now found an effective and transparent manner by which to eliminate this disruption while maintaining all measures in force to ensure that decisions are taken properly on tender offers. I would have thought that doing so is in the interests of all political parties... but the issue was always a recurring problem and still is.