The findings from the latest Earth for All survey reveal a global public remarkably united in its anger over economic unfairness.  Even more disturbing is a far more dangerous development: a collapse in public trust that undermines health and wellbeing, showing governments as possessing neither the will nor the capacity to fix it.  People's patience with politicians and policymakers to act on this evidence is running out.

The message from citizens in 17 of the world's largest economies   ̶   accounting for nearly 60 per cent of global GDP and well over a third of the world's population   ̶   is unequivocal.  Seven in 10 respondents state that economic inequality in their country has gone too far. Two-thirds view the economic system as rigged in favour of the rich and powerful, while 69 per pent demand major economic transformation.

These are not marginal grievances: there is an overwhelming consensus irrespective of income brackets, political affiliations, and geography.  People have concluded that our prevailing economic paradigm   ̶   one that prioritises wealth accumulation over collective wellbeing   ̶   is failing them.

Against the backdrop of this consensus, faith that democratic institutions will deliver meaningful change has dived precipitously.  Only 31 per cent of respondents say their government will make decisions that benefit the most people over the next 20 to 30 years, down from almost 40 per cent just two years ago.

Once people conclude that the democratic process is incapable of acting in the long-term interest of the wider public, the social fabric starts fraying. Two-thirds of survey respondents believe their country is more divided today than it was 10 years ago. They point to serious, growing tensions between supporters of opposing political parties, between high- and low-income groups, between native-born citizens and immigrants, and between those alarmed by climate change and those who remain sceptical.

Does this ring a bell or two here?  Big way.  Just a few months after the general election, many of the issues that were simmering under the surface have come to a boiling point.  The solutions to most of them exist but have been repeatedly postponed.  A paralysis seems to have gripped the decision-makers and timid minds keep counselling caution when the need is for bold action.   

We need a new economics and a new way of doing politics for the 21st century.  We need to listen to NGOs and other organisations who are insisting on sustainable solutions to economic, social, and environmental challenges. The key word here is "listening," not lecturing or arrogantly assuming that the government knows best.

The PL's new CEO Ivan Falzon, speaking to Andrew Azzopardi on Campus 103.7, recently said the middle class no longer want to talk about "bread and butter issues" or political giveaways but want "things of more substance," particularly stronger policies that protect the environment and their quality of life.  Mr Falzon, not only the middle class, but also the upper and intellectual class.

For what they are worth, I would like to highlight some strategic ways of government engagement with the people. 

The first one is the provision of public services for all through tax justice.  Public services provide necessities to thousands of people and drive economic activity but consume huge resources.  Let us start designing and operating them through the participation of communities through systems, greater transparency, and stricter standards in relation to functioning and procurement.

Fair and redistributive tax policies are required to pay for these services. Rather than more tax cuts we need more taxation of financial transactions, capital gains, and conspicuous consumption.  Mr Falzon alluded to a fairer distribution of income.  How can a socialist party keep cost the rich so much?  What are we waiting for to tax some assets, like life insurance, transfers to close relatives, and to have an estate or inheritance tax levied on large estates which allowing dynastic wealth to grow across the generations tax-free.

The second strategic goal would be to scale up social ownership.  Across the world more than one billion people are already members of cooperatives, a key part of the 'social and solidarity economy.'  We need a solidarity economy that asserts people's control over the economy.  In Quebec, Canada, ten per cent of all economic activity comes from this solidarity economy. 

Third, we must support local markets and fair trade.  For example, a study by the University of California found that twice as much money stayed in the community when people bought the produce they needed at local farmers' markets instead of supermarkets. The promotion of local and agro-ecological production also eliminates unnecessary carbon-intensive transportation.

Fourth, we must create economies of purpose by valuing the wellbeing of people and planet.  The government's neoliberalism treats growth and competitiveness as goals in themselves rather than means to a wider end. This exacerbates inequality.  GDP should be given much less priority and replaced with new indicators of progress (by the way, such indicators should be drawn up and be measured by an independent organisation).

Fifth, we must have a strong policy to dismantle the power of big business - the Trojan horse in the government.  Abuses by Big Business are rife.  What the PM loves calling "the carrot" is not enough   ̶   we need an almighty stick.  And please do not attack this messenger, because I am a keen believer in free enterprise and in supporting it.  What I hate are the cowboys and wolves.

Coming to the Government itself, we need a change in direction. 

First, how about a new relationship between government and citizens?  One about moving from a transactional to a relational model. Government needs to strengthen its capacity to understand and anticipate citizens' needs, while demonstrating that public input can shape policy choices. Of course, government is responsible for weighing trade-offs and taking decisions in the public interest, but this must be coupled with (wonder of wonder) open government practices, deliberative processes, service redesign, use of digital and data, and efforts to foster common ground.

Secondly, government and regulation should be significantly.  There is a need for a radical simplification: re-engineering structures, processes, and accountability frameworks around clarity, speed, and delivery, eliminating friction and duplication while strengthening transparency and accountability.  As it is, we have spent some €700m on redoing the roads but are now ripping them up again to lay new cables and drainage systems. 

Thirdly, restoring room for manoeuvre in public finances is imperative.  With the Minister of Finance with his back to the wall, responding to this challenge calls for a strategic and dynamic approach to public budgeting and financial management: systematic identification of programmes that deliver less value, a capacity to stop or redesign programmes in order to reallocate funding for more pressing priorities.  Forget some of the silly proposals in the electoral manifesto and use the funds to spur innovation and transformation.

Fourth, government needs to be prepared and be pro-active.  The State has to be reengineered for the digital age through a shift from reactive adaptation to a pro-active one.  Key deliverables include joined-up data, a seamless digital infrastructure, enhanced accountability for AI and cybersecurity, strengthening digital sovereignty, and robust risk management. 

Our economic system is now operating at the very limits of its own capacity.  While I do not agree that our economic model is built on immigration, as the PN has repeatedly claimed, one notes that PM Abela had announced a new economic policy and model in 2020.   There's little to show for it.  What stands in the way of addressing the country's challenges is not the lack of capital: total resident deposits held with monetary financial institutions in Malta reached €27.5bn in 2025. A large proportion of this idle money can be redirected to finance more resilient public infrastructure, higher-quality education systems, and climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.

In my opinion, what has gone wrong is that the government adopted a "pandering model" to changing policy.  This has resulted in "status-quo" types, rather than "reformers" formulating and implementing policy. The results have been reform failures.  The rewriting of the Planning Authority's rules is a classic example.  How can somebody who got it wrong several times be expected to deliver real, sustainable reform?

Second, however, "status-quo" types continue to resist reforms because of the reputation value in political markets of sticking to their preferred (inefficient) policy to signal to their supporters their steadfastness.  That is, politicians can choose inefficient policies even at the risk of the common good because of concerns otherwise they lose face or fear appearing weak.

Another failure of the system is that people who wouldn't last a month in a high-powered private enterprise see careers in political markets as an opportunity to redeem themselves.   Quite a few of them can be dishonest to boot.  Non-reforming politicians indulge in inefficient policy because these policies facilitate benefits extraction beyond the ego-rents of holding office.  

The pandering model is ideal for private interests which are determined to win public contracts by hook or crook, compared to standard economic interest groups who influence policymakers through reasoned and correct interfaces.  The potential for corruption inherent in the pandering model is enormous.   Between 83% and 87% of people in Malta believe that corruption is widespread (Eurobarometer), meaning that the belief is widespread across the political spectrum.

I am afraid that the political will for real reforms is seriously lacking.   Highfalutin announcements, strategies, and brochures are no substitute for the real thing.  The problem is that political will can only succeed if the costs are paid.  In our case, the cost includes the dismissal of corrupt and inefficient political appointees, a reset of the relationship between government and business, and a willingness by the politicians to face the "wrath" of the rank-and-file who have been brain-washed into thinking that any engagement with the fictional "enemies of the State" is a defeat.