Without radical reform, the two-thirds vote on ODZ is just posturing

I can see a two-thirds vote inside the Maltese parliament providing an exceptional piece of political theatre, but when it comes to real scrutiny, why is the Nationalist Party not willing to subscribe to a radical moratorium on ODZ?

It can be hard to turn one’s back on the largesse of the construction industry. It almost seems unfair in any debate to confer such a radical and onerous obligation on one-half of Malta’s unstoppable political machine: make no mistake, the alternation of power in Malta carries with it the invisible handshake of hallowed industries like construction and financial services.

Simon Busuttil is willing to put the Nationalist Party’s disastrous record on the environment and planning behind him, should not environmental NGOs – both old and new – expect more than just a procedural token gesture?

What could be easier than to strike out as the total opposite of Joseph Muscat’s administration, geared to provide public land to private business for their maximisation of profits in a bid to target the global rich to come to Malta? You can take on the high-rise policy alone, now generating a ‘scramble’ at St George’s Bay and in Sliema for land that will be worth billions once it turns into towers.

The problem is not in the procedure employed. It is in the power game it seeks to play.

Add to that the ENGOs’ misgivings about the planning-environmental demerger, and it’s easy to understand why some politicians feel they can be the last redoubt for the protection of heritage and land outside development zones that should be untouched.

It’s not that Busuttil’s two-thirds proposal for ODZ land is half-baked. Fine-tuned, you can easily define which sort of national project ODZ could deserve a parliamentary debate with two-thirds’ clearance; and whether a project refused by the PA would even have to go up to House of Representatives in the first place.

The problem is not in the procedure employed. It is in the power game it seeks to play.

Forget ‘scrutiny’ for now. Consider the proposal at its very basic level. It implies that a two-thirds vote can generate bipartisan consensus against some folly from the Planning Authority.

Zonqor, for example. Hypothetically PA-approved, the PN would rightly vote against twice, and finally Labour carries the day with a simple majority. Plus ça change. Labour MPs would insist they should respect the PA’s decision. The Nationalist MPs would accuse Labour of bulldozing a controversial project.

Forget that almost all these people do not enjoy the PN’s favour and would only be approved by the final simply majority vote: who would such a zero-sum game of bipartisan deadlock benefit?

Now remember that Busuttil’s two-thirds proposal is also a mainstay of his good governance pledge, specifically on roles which in part require political confidence and with which the Opposition has been unhappy with (in various cases, justifiably): Busuttil also wants two-thirds approval on Commissioner of Police, the Commander of the Armed Forces, the Principal Permanent Secretary, the Governor of the Central Bank, the Chief Statistician at the NSO, as well as constitutionally-appointed members such as the Broadcasting Authority, the Public Service Commission and the Employment Commission must be employed by two-thirds of the House.

Forget that almost all these people do not enjoy the PN’s favour and would only be approved by the final simply majority vote: who would such a zero-sum game of bipartisan deadlock benefit? Does the intransigent duopoly in the House suddenly became the right arena to ‘elect’ positions that guarantee law and order, national security, the management of the civil service, monetary policy and statistics really be approved by bipartisan agreement? Should constitutional bodies appointed by the President be vetoed by parliament?

I do agree that even a Prime Minister’s prerogative to appoint such people be scrutinised by a democratic structure. But I disagree that they become the pretext for yet another show of strength between the Labour and the Nationalist Party.

On this I keep insisting on the need for full-time MPs to carry out year-long grilling of publicly-appointed chairpersons and CEOs and provide a rolling review of publicly-owned entities’ operations and finances.

But back to ODZ: what we need on planning is an ideological commitment and a bias in favour of the environment, not party MPs flexing their muscles during a two-thirds vote. Can any parliamentary procedure really allay people’s fears of the way the Planning Authority historically does the bidding of government ministers and their patrons?

I try not to be a sceptic on governance. But the real problem of Maltese politics will always be the incestuous marriage of politicians and businesses. When Busuttil says there is no realistic option other than the Labour-Nationalist party machine taking power, it is this consensus that gives us the most glaring hint of why construction, financial services, and the leisure industries seem to be calling the shots on how things get done in Malta.