Solutions: There is a way we can make social policy work | Andrew Azzopardi

Prof. Andrew Azzopardi, Dean, Faculty for Social Wellbeing

Our social sector is becoming increasingly complex. 

We do not think about social policy as an isolated segment of public policy anymore, but as an integrated course of action linked to all aspects of our social wellbeing, ranging from the economy to environmental issues, from transportation to climate change, from institutional correctness to community development.

Because of all of this, a phenomenon that we saw unravelling before our eyes during these past few years was the number of government ministries taking on angles that are relevant to our social policy.

This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. But we all know how politics works in Malta and this situation has only, ultimately, encouraged the creation of more silos, and in some cases, even fortress thinking. Not only, some issues... take as an example ‘gender-based and domestic violence’, have been dissected to the extent that they are being addressed by two, sometimes even three ministries, which only serves to add to more confusion and weakened response.

To be quite honest, with all the ministries and parliamentary secretaries sprouting like weeds, and with political decisions taken solely on the basis of appeasing a partisan political strategy, it only makes it even more difficult to converge all these interests. 

However, there might be a way of merging the cause without upsetting the apple-cart.

We currently have the following: the Commission for the Rights of Persons with Mental Disorders; the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality for Men and Women; the National Commission on Active Ageing; the Commission for Refugees; the Commission on Gender-Based Violence and Domestic Violence; the Commission for Children; the Commission for Voluntary Organisations; the Commission for Animal Welfare; the Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disability – amongst other entities and councils that have similar raison d'être or could potentially do so.

The current situation is that most of these commissions have different operational models, different lines of accountability, different conditions of work, governed by different legislations, SOPs, polices and procedures. Some are run by full-times, others not, some have been there forever and their voice is hardly recognisable, some are in awe of ‘their’ minister, others are independent thinkers. Some are practically dead wood and others are active and leave an imprint on our social policy. Some of the people in these commissions are political appointees whilst other are clearly competent and in fact leaving an indelible mark. 

Well, it’s complete bedlam. 

I believe that the work of these commissions and prospective impact is mostly going to waste.  Once again, we have entities building a fortress social policy that is hypothetically in isolation from the link to ongoing social proceedings. I will spare the embarrassment of giving examples but it is both clear and logical that all the commissions listed above should be working conjointly if proper and real effectiveness is warranted.

Following the general elections a new government could provide us with a sterling opportunity to solve the problem of a sporadic and isolated social policy once and for all.

A new government provides us with a golden opportunity to bring in an integrated approach by getting the commissions streamlined by ‘falling’ under one legislation with a common modus operandi. They can be brought together physically under one roof and answerable to Parliament.

Not only, they should have an overarching structure that sees to recruitment, training, policy development, research analysis and all the works. There would be a chair who heads a council that sits these entities together. Such a procedure will get these offices working together similarly to the way the Ombudsman’s office operates.

Moreover, the biggest benefit of this transversal structure is that it will divorce the commissions from the politicians, some of whom are more interested to make hay while the sun shines and milk the photo-ops, than really taking on board the serious issues at stake, all of which need to be handled urgently and expediently.

Finally, this structure will be in the best possible position to act as a ‘whip’ for government and to insist that state agencies take on their duties and responsibilities, whilst also bringing all the social partners together.