We, the free-for-all nation

I am beginning to ask myself whether certain members of the political class understand the difference between a free market and a free-for-all. In particular, I have the property market in mind.

ODZ developments (the latest instalment being the application to build a structure on the edge of the ridge overlooking Għasri Valley in Gozo), the repeated rape of Sliema, the seemingly unstoppable, wanton destruction of mature gardens in our towns and villages... these are, I believe, sources of worry, frustration, and dejection for many people.

There seems to be this insane idea that the free market implies a free-for-all.

In reality, a real free market does not mean a free-for-all. A free market is free only within the limits imposed by the rules, which are there not only to ensure that freedom but also to ensure that the freedom does not become a rampage.

Unlike its predecessor, the modern legal framework – born in Europe in the 19th century – is meant to facilitate the liberal market, to enable but even to encourage the freedom to own and make money on the passage of ownership with as little hindrance as possible. This framework is based on the notion that freedom can only exist if rules are in place and scrupulously observed. Without such rules, there would be a free-forall situation, akin to a Mafialand where the stronger elements intimidate and dominate – a law of the jungle situation.

Is this not what many people feel? That the situation has degenerated into a concrete jungle where only the survival of the strongest holds sway?

The impression one gets is that the dominant culture promotes the idea that rules are there to be flouted, that individual greed is more important than the common good.

It is a culture borne by the inability to distinguish between a free market and a free-for-all, which in turn is laying waste the country. Both on a physical and a moral level. I see a tangible connection between the physical and the moral environment, between the body and the spirit of the nation, and of the country.

This brand of liberalism leads to a laissez-faire which will change the face of this country beyond recognition. And not for the better. It is leading to an anxiety the nation experiences as a sort of background noise. In other words, it is an anxiety one lives with, sometimes even unaware of its existence. It lies somewhere beneath the threshold of consciousness and constant exposure to it ends up engendering a sense of helplessness. Just look at the Sliema association which only a few days ago threw in the towel and decided to give up its efforts to save the town’s heritage. In fairness, who can blame them?

As a sort of compensation, the government is now regaling us with the latest in a fairly long series of buzzwords: “cosmopolitanism”.

I say “regaling with” because at times it seems as if these other by-word for the senseless laissez-faire, or free-for-all, which seems to have possessed the spirit and body of this nation?

Is it a call to rally behind the notion of absolute ownership in the name of belonging to the world rather than to one’s country?

I disagree with such a notion. When your political vision encompasses the entire world, rather than just your country, you don’t care if you destroy the heritage of one tiny town called Sliema, or the ridge of an insignificant valley on a miniscule island called Gozo, because the world is full of towns and valleys. When you embrace the entire world, you don’t care if you destroy the life of an individual, because there are billions of them on the planet.

The neo-liberalism espoused by the current administration, inspired by globalisation and its lack of respect for local identities and community spirit, will bring this country to its knees.

Few will be those who under- stand, disoriented as they are by their short-sightedness and then blinded by their greed. The vast majority will seek their immediate interest and short-term gain, unable to care about future consequences. The invisible hand will destroy in a visible and tangible manner, unless checked and restrained.

This is precisely why it falls squarely on the shoulders of the leaders to make the right decisions, thinking long-term, in terms of multigenerational time-scales.

Opening secret trusts and companies is not really an indicator that some of those currently in power are quite interested in long-term, multigenerational development. To me, such secretive structures indicate only a personal interest, inspired by greed and fuelled by a primordial urge to make hay while the sun shines.

In the meantime, as a short personal note, some quarters are trying to intimidate me because I wrote the book on the Panama Papers scandal. Let’s see how it develops.