Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1278887
11 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 16 AUGUST 2020 OPINION a political response. In actual fact, the same lesson can be made to apply to virtual- ly any issue you care to name… so I'll limit myself to just one example for now (on the under- standing that it would work ex- actly the same with any other). COVID-19. Naturally, I wouldn't want to conflate the two issues too much: if nothing else, because the problems caused by one – divorce – were ultimately fairly easy to address, through a very simple legislative change (so much so, that nobody's even talking about them anymore… a mere 10 years after the referen- dum). As we can all see, however, the problems caused by global pan- demics tend to be slightly more complex and challenging than that. And yet, the same basic lesson from the 2011 divorce referendum still applies; even if, admittedly, in ways that are slightly less conspicuous. For when confronted with a national problem that is: a) very real; b) very, VERY serious, and; c) affecting not just large num- bers of people, but the entire population (not to mention the entire economy)… … government's response was still to fall back on entirely emp- ty, meaningless political catch- phrases, which – while they may have worked very well, in the past – are clearly of no use whatsoever against the present threat. Like, for instance: 'we need to strike a balance between [in this case] the interests of the econ- omy, and the interests of public health'… Speaking for myself, I have now lost count of the num- ber of times I've heard either Prime Minister Robert Abela or Health Minister Chris Fearne resort to that same one-liner in recent weeks; and while I don't exactly disagree with the overall sentiment… well, there are two problems that I can see with it, even at a glance. The first is that it is exactly the same line that every single administration of government in this country – Labour or Na- tionalist, it really doesn't matter – has always taken, whenever faced with problems pitting in- compatibly different interests against each other (in other words, all the bloody time). Take the environment, for in- stance. How many times have we all heard about the 'need to strike a balance' between the in- terests of, say, the construction/ development lobby… and the complaints of a growing num- ber of citizens who are (quite rightly) alarmed by the con- stant, seemingly unstoppable loss of rural open spaces in this country (not to mention people dying in construction accidents, etc.)? Now: compare that to the number of times we have all seen any actual evidence of a truly 'balanced' approach to such matters, and… well, you'll get to the second problem in no time at all. Sure, we can all appreciate the need to 'strike a balance' in this scenario, too; after all, nobody involved on the health side of this debate – the doctors, the nurses, the epidemiologists, etc. – was ever heard arguing in favour of a second total lock- down... or, even more drastical- ly, calling for a second closure of the airport. What we haven't seen at all, however, is any sign of this 'bal- ancing act' actually existing in practice. On the contrary: the present government seems to have pursued the exact same line it has always taken in the past: it has talked about the need for balance, certainly… but when it came to taking decisions, it very clearly listened to only one side of the debate, to the almost-to- tal exclusion of the other. So where all the country's health experts urged a partial, cautious re-opening strategy – characterised by limitations to the number of countries we opened up to, coupled with more restrictions on public gather- ings – the government caved in to the demands of the hotel/ entertainment lobby: flinging the floodgates wide open to all visitors from all countries… and not only permitting, but active- ly encouraging the organisation of mass events numbering any- where up to 20,000 attendees. Where's the 'balance' in that, I wonder? And if, as we can now all see, there is no real sign that any such balance exists at all… that, as usual, one lobby-group can be seen to clearly outweigh all others, when it comes to in- fluencing government's policy decisions on any given topic… well, what value does the same oft-repeated catchphrase really have in practice? About as much value, I sup- pose, as the PN's former anti-di- vorce stand had for that elderly man, who wanted nothing more than to see his daughter married before he died. In a word: absolute zilch… How many times have we all heard about the 'need to strike a balance' between the interests of, say, the construction/ development lobby… and the complaints of a growing number of citizens who are (quite rightly) alarmed by the constant, seemingly unstoppable loss of rural open spaces