GUEST POST/In LabourSpeak, the definition of ‘pro business’ is as primitive as it gets

By Matthew S

 

One of the things which persuaded many former Nationalist voters to switch to Labour in 2013 was Joseph Muscat’s declaration that Labour has become, and I quote, “a pro-business party”.

Following the horrors of bulk-buying, import limitations and empty shelves in the Dom Mintoff/Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici era, and threats of Sicilian barbers invading Malta and anti-euro rhetoric in the Alfred Sant era, this sounded like a major ideological shift. Even some Nationalist Party officials (I know because I talked to them) were impressed by Muscat’s talk of boosting the private sector and of public/private partnerships.

How could those who have always prized private industry over government interference in the market say no to that?

Two and a half years and several government business deals down the line, it is an apt time to analyse how this ideological shift has panned out. Labour has indeed become pro-business but it is still anti-free-market and anti-economy. The difference might sound esoteric or purely academic but it is important to understand if we want to figure out what Labour is up to.

In Labour-speak, the definition of pro-business is as primitive as it gets. It means that Labour is in favour of making money. Whether rules are followed, rights are upheld, transparency is adhered to, whether or not the market is manipulated, individuals are trampled upon and companies get shafted in the process doesn’t really matter to Labour. If there is money to be raked in (as Joseph Muscat so inelegantly puts it), Labour is all for it.

Following that logic, the money-laundering and cocaine-trading ‘Ndrangheta and the slave-selling Islamic State are also pro-business. They also like raking in money.

Being pro-free-market requires much more sophistication than just being pro-business. The free market requires that business ventures are chosen after the issuing of tenders – unlike what happened with the American University of Malta and Konrad Mizzi’s beleaguered power station.

It means that expressions of interest and tender processes are not just a cover for companies which have been chosen already – unlike Chris Cardona’s casinos and the Oxley Capital Group/hospitals farce.

It means that private companies like Arriva are respected and not pushed out by Banana Republic behaviour.

It means that contracts which are signed in the people’s name are published, scrutinised and discussed in parliament – unlike what has happened in the government’s deals with Henley & Partners and Electrogas Malta.

It means that business sense is not thrown out of the window for political expediency – unlike what is happening with Air Malta.

It means that private businesses operators who fail are not profligately bailed out by the government – unlike what happened in the Cafe Premier deal.

It means that corrupt fixers like Marco Gaffarena are not engaged with and rewarded by the government.

It means that companies which fail in such fundamentals as raising finance for an already-contracted project are not shored up by the government while putting 88 million euros of public money and public property at risk – unlike what happened with Electrogas Malta.

And it means that companies which are suspected of bribery, espionage and other forms of corruption, especially those owned by autocratic states like Azerbaijan and China, are kept at a distance.

The kind of pro-business policies that the Labour government is following do wonders for a few fixers and operators in the Taghna Lkoll inner circle but do little for the economy as a whole. And they are actually harming the market.

Rentier states often conduct a lot of business and theoretically have a high GDP per person, but in fact they have an underdeveloped market and many citizens living in abject poverty.

Pro-business, anti-market: it’s just a few big cheeses scratching each other’s backs to rake in as much money as possible, as quickly as possible.

Witness how China tried to manipulate the stock market in that country when it began to crash a few weeks ago. Compare Saudi Arabia’s wealth with its extremely high youth unemployment rates. Look at how businesses which Vladimir Putin doesn’t like are pushed out in Russia. These countries which Joseph Muscat admires so much do business all right, but they don’t allow private companies (as opposed to state-owned companies and companies in which members of the government or their family and cronies have a personal stake) to flourish and the market to follow its natural course.

At least, with the old socialist model, the Labour Party believed in some kind of (twisted) fairness. They wanted us all to earn the same wage (we’re the proletariat so no salaries here) and they wanted us to live in communes called housing projects. This new Labour model is actually a regression because it doesn’t even try to be ideologically fair. It’s just a feast of gluttony and ħamallaġni.

What Malta needs is not a pro-business government but one which is pro-free-market and one which leaves the economy to function just as it should in an open and democratic country. That’s not going to happen with this lot in government.