The rise of the accountability trap

The resignation of Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister of the United Kingdom barely two years after securing one of Labour’s largest parliamentary majorities has prompted the inevitable post-mortem.

Analysts have debated political mistakes, policy failures, communication problems and declining popularity. Yet beneath these immediate explanations lies a much deeper question that extends far beyond British politics.

Professor Rainer Kattel recently described what he calls the “accountability trap”. Modern democracies, he argues, increasingly demand instant accountability for problems whose solutions require years, sometimes decades, to materialise. Governments are judged according to the rhythm of opinion polls, social media and 24-hour news cycles, while the challenges they are expected to solve, from productivity and education to infrastructure and climate resilience, operate according to an entirely different clock.

It is a fascinating concept because it exposes one of the greatest paradoxes of contemporary governance. Democracies have arguably never been more accountable, yet they may also be finding it increasingly difficult to govern.

For Malta, this is not a story about Britain. It is a story about ourselves.

Following another democratic election, Malta enters a new political chapter from a position of relative stability. Our institutions have demonstrated resilience, governments generally complete their mandates, and political transitions occur peacefully. These are considerable strengths that should never be taken for granted, particularly in an increasingly fragmented world.

Yet stability should never become an excuse for complacency.

If there is one lesson worth drawing from Britain’s experience, it is that good governance is not simply about surviving elections. It is about creating institutions capable of pursuing long-term national objectives despite electoral cycles. The real challenge facing advanced democracies is not political instability. It is strategic inconsistency.

This matters because the problems confronting Malta today are fundamentally different from those that shaped the country’s success over the past two decades. They are structural rather than cyclical. They are interconnected rather than isolated. Most importantly, they cannot be solved within the lifespan of a single legislature.

Take productivity, perhaps the defining economic challenge repeatedly highlighted by the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission, the Central Bank of Malta and the Malta Fiscal Advisory Council. The diagnosis has become remarkably consistent. Malta has enjoyed an exceptional period of economic expansion, driven largely by higher labour force participation, population growth and a dynamic services economy. Yet, future prosperity cannot continue relying primarily on adding more people into the economy. The next phase must be driven by producing greater value from the resources already available.

That transition requires something politics often struggles to provide—patience.

The patience politics struggles to provide

Improving productivity means investing in education long before the benefits become visible. It means supporting research and innovation whose commercial applications may emerge years later. It means strengthening institutions, modernising regulation and developing digital capabilities whose economic returns extend well beyond a single electoral cycle.

None of these reforms produce immediate political rewards. Yet together they determine whether Malta will continue converging with Europe’s most productive economies or gradually lose competitiveness.

Education illustrates this challenge particularly well. Every discussion about productivity eventually leads back to skills. Every discussion about wages eventually leads back to education. If Malta genuinely wishes to become an innovation-driven economy, then education can no longer be viewed simply as a social service. It must increasingly be recognised as the country’s most important economic investment.

This is why previous proposals around stronger vocational pathways, studio schools, closer collaboration between industry and education, and lifelong learning are not merely education changes but economic reforms. The accountability trap makes such investments politically difficult precisely because their benefits extend far beyond the next election.

The same logic applies to infrastructure.

Planning, transport, water management, energy systems and digital connectivity have become central economic questions. Malta is now the most densely populated country in the European Union. Every additional resident, business and tourist places further pressure on finite land, roads and public services. The solution cannot simply be to build more of everything. It must increasingly involve building smarter.

Infrastructure planning therefore demands extraordinary consistency. Roads, public transport systems, renewable energy projects, digital infrastructure and urban regeneration programmes require decades of planning, implementation and maintenance. They cannot be redesigned every five years according to shifting political priorities.

Demographics present another example of the accountability trap.

Foreign workers have undoubtedly supported Malta’s remarkable economic expansion while also helping sustain the pension system through additional contributions. Yet immigration is not an economic strategy in itself. It provides breathing space. The real question is how that breathing space is used. If the additional labour simply sustains existing economic structures without improving productivity, strengthening skills or upgrading industries, then today’s solution merely postpones tomorrow’s challenge.

The same can be said for public finances. Malta deserves considerable credit for restoring fiscal discipline and exiting the European Union’s Excessive Deficit Procedure. But reducing deficits is not the destination. It is the foundation. The ultimate objective of sound public finances is to create the fiscal space necessary to invest in the country’s future productive capacity. Budgets should therefore increasingly be evaluated not only by how much they spend, but by what they enable.

This is where Vision 2050 becomes particularly relevant.

Vision do not implement themselves

The vision rightly articulates ambitious aspirations for a more productive, resilient, sustainable and innovative Malta. Yet, visions, however well written, do not implement themselves. They require governance systems capable of maintaining strategic direction over decades rather than electoral cycles. Otherwise, every election risks becoming another exercise in resetting priorities instead of steadily advancing national objectives.

Perhaps this is where Malta’s next stage of institutional maturity lies.

Competitive politics remains essential to democracy. Different ideas, competing visions and electoral accountability are fundamental strengths rather than weaknesses. Yet not every issue should become an electoral battleground. There are areas where the national interest demands greater continuity than confrontation.

Education is one. Productivity is another. Infrastructure, innovation, demographic resilience, institutional quality and long-term competitiveness belong in the same category. These are national missions. Governments may legitimately differ on implementation, but the overall direction should increasingly command broad societal agreement.

This requires a different understanding of accountability itself.

Too often accountability has become synonymous with immediate political consequences. A difficult reform attracts criticism and is abandoned. A long-term investment fails to produce visible results within months and is labelled unsuccessful. Governments become accountable for headlines rather than outcomes.

But real accountability asks whether educational attainment has improved. Whether productivity increased. Whether institutions became stronger. Whether infrastructure enhanced competitiveness. Whether future generations inherited a more resilient country than the one we enjoy today.

Those outcomes cannot be measured in weeks or even years. They require patience, consistency and strategic discipline.

Perhaps that is the most valuable lesson emerging from Britain’s political experience. Strong democracies are not those that simply replace leaders efficiently. They are those that build institutions capable of pursuing long-term national objectives regardless of who occupies political office.