Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1133773
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 23 JUNE 2019 INTERVIEW ed at individuals who believe their life can, and should, get materially better. It is a men- tality that can be traced back to the early 1990s: when we started measuring the status of a human being by how much money he has in the bank; what sort of house he lives in, how many cars he has, his lifestyle, and so on. You could say it was 'intro- duced by the Nationalist Party'; but Labour has now taken it to new extremes. All the Labour Party's campaign videos, for example, focused exclusively on popular aspirations: the am- bition to be this, the ambition to do that… Is that such a bad thing, though? Aren't people within their rights to 'dream big', even if those dreams don't come true? I would say that… no, having a highly aspirational society is not necessarily a good thing, in the long term. It only gives rise to more exploitation. Because instead of people banding to- gether to collectively improve their conditions of work, and to create a fairer economy… it's a case of 'each man to his own': everybody convinced that he will become richer than every- one else, and faster, too. That mentality is there, and it is very strong. But the conflict is still there, too. It is not true that all of so- ciety has the same goals and interests. The interests of big business are not the interests of workers, or of residents who are seeing their own quality of life deteriorating. So, while the model is undeniably there… there are also a lot of cracks in it. Materially, people know when they're being exploited. They feel it when their salary doesn't last them the month… or when they find it impossible to get a roof over their heads, because they can't get a loan with the salary they have, and the cost of property shooting up all the time. If they're choking on con- struction dust, or afraid to live in their homes because they're demolishing next door… these are not things you can sweep under the carpet. Would you say there is, in fact, more groundswell discontent than can be measured by attendance at protest marches? What we've been seeing in recent years – long before the latest development concerning the db project – is that the feel- ing, on the street, is changing. Moviment Graffitti has been working directly with local communities for a long time now: enough to get a sense of how things are on the ground. Right now, the sensation is that people are angry. And they come from different po- litical backgrounds: political allegiance is no longer a fac- tor at all. When we meet resi- dents, we wouldn't have any idea whether we're talking to Nationalist or Labour voters. It doesn't even come out in the discussion. They will all be feeling the same sentiments: they're all facing the same situ- ation. They know that while the economy is steadily grow- ing, their own quality of life – in practice, every day – is not improving, but actually getting worse… But there is also the sensation that Malta's economic growth is too dependent on the construction sector. We saw this in 1987, and also in 2013. Government's strategy for a speedy economic recovery has always been to open the floodgates of construction. Isn't there a danger, then, that by putting the brakes on, the shock to the economy might be too severe? When you look at the facts and figures about what really contributes to the economy… the construction sector is there, but it isn't as large as a lot of people make it out. There are other, much bigger con- tributors. But it is true that a building boom can speed up the rate of economic growth… at an enor- mous cost. But we have to bear in mind that – even just from a purely economic angle – this is a finite resource. In a sense, ours is an 'extractive economy', like those of countries which rely on natural resources such as coal, oil, or gas. Only in our case, the resource is land: which is also the land we live in. A point will be reached where there's simply nowhere left to build. So, in the long-term, it doesn't even make sense as an economic policy. Then we have to consider the impact on other sectors. Tourism, for instance. A lot of the tourists who come to Malta go back with a bad im- pression. I hear this from tour- ists and tour operators all the time. 'Sorry, but this country is ugly.' And you can't even deny it, because everywhere you look… well, you can't really say that what you see is 'beautiful'. Let's face it: it isn't. The Mal- ta we are building is ugly. It's partly the type of buildings that are going up; partly the sheer amount of buildings; the way they are going up… All this di- minishes the value of our tour- ism product, to stick only to the economic argument. But it's also about the economic model as a whole. We cannot continue to base our model solely on 'economic growth at all costs'. I would prefer a lower rate of eco- nomic growth – because there has to be growth: it is the ex- tent I am questioning, not the growth itself – coupled with a higher quality of life. The dis- tribution of resources could be better, too. Compared to other countries, Malta has extremely low tax rates for the rich. Rais- ing those tax rates might have a dampening effect on growth rates – which is not a bad thing, in itself – but it would result in higher revenue that could be more fairly redistributed. That is a viable economic model, too. Meanwhile the court's ruling against db's Pembroke project seems to have raised hopes that such battles can occasionally be won. Do you see this as a turning point in the fight for a new planning regime? When it comes to the plan- ning system in general, I would be wary of using terms like 'turning point'. If the plan- ning system 'doesn't work', it is not because it is inefficient, or flawed. It doesn't work because there are interests in ensuring that it doesn't work. In fact, the planning system works very well… for some people, but not for others. I don't think the court's decision will change any of that. But it does have a lot to con- tribute: not just with regard to the project itself, but also as a beacon of encouragement. It shows that, yes, people do have ways to resist certain things. One thing I can't stand is to hear people argue that 'it's all useless'; 'everything's already decided'; 'everything is cor- rupt'… these are all defeatist comments, and as such they are just a very good excuse to do nothing. As activists, we know from experience that people can and do make a difference. And right now, there is a feeling that things have become so bad, that people really do have to at least try and change the system. When you imagine what Malta might become like in 20 years' time… it's frighten- ing, really. A dystopia: a place where you can't even move about any more. No open spaces anywhere. So yes, one can talk perhaps of a turning point… although it has long been in the making. People have been feeling help- less for years, but now things have gone too far. With this court ruling, they will hopefully realise that they can get togeth- er and organise themselves to make a difference. It's an op- portunity we have to grasp, and build on as best we can. But at the same time, it's only one battle that has been won. We haven't won the war. There are many more battles to go. I would prefer a lower rate of economic growth – because there has to be growth: it is the extent I am questioning, not the growth itself – coupled with a higher quality of life