Some years back I had proposed, and carried through with great difficulty in a general conference of the Malta Labour Party, an amendment to the statute, barring party officials from contesting the general elections in the party's name. The reason behind it was simple. Those who are party officials and who would establish their personal roots and contacts in the political party scenario, at the crucial moment would disappear. They have to take care of their constituency.
That would not be fair to the party, whichever it may be. The compromise was that at least they have to resign two years in advance.
That rule still remains on the MLP's statute. I do not know what the internal situation is in the Nationalist Party, but it seems that the general secretary is a non-contesting official and not an aspiring candidate.
What was not foreseen at the time was the position of employees, full-time or part-time, on the party media. At the moment of the drafting of the amendment there was certainly no intention manifested by any party to own its radio and television stations. Now it has become an established part of our political jigsaw, with close similarities to the Italian system, though in that case the three channels cater for the different political trends.
In Italy the experience has already been very pronounced that media people are considered good political candidates. Many are elected. And not all are called Cicciolina! Ranging from Enzo Tortora to any local television station, many have made their way to represent constituents directly from the background of sound or vision media.
It may not be perfectly in accordance with freedom of exercising civic rights, but I do consider that people in the media, especially the political stations, should have a rule of their own choosing, that if they decide to stand for election, they should refrain from presenting themselves on the media as this is tantamount to an unfair political advantage. The Broadcasting Authority bans candidates appearing even in their ordinary programmes during the election campaign, but that is too short a period to counteract the influence on the electorate.
Subtlety of the message
I am sure that I am voicing a concern of both Labour and Nationalist candidates in any sort of election. A television programme may not be directly political, but the message especially over a prolonged period can be more subtle than that of a blatant advertisement of a potential candidate. This is nothing new really. Politicians in other countries have been made by the media.
Some time back I noticed an attempt at stature-building of a potential politician. Once in the media, he was playing his cards well. Besides the actual programmes there are many individuals who are either on stage or behind the scenes who can usefully and knowledgeably launch an individual. Not all have to be as ridiculously "partisan" as Emilio Fede!
I do not like such tactics, as this is unfair to all concerned. It is unfair on the political party itself, it is unfair on other candidates who certainly cannot be given the same opportunity, whatever their worth, and unfair on the electorate. Party media are not owned by an individual. There are so many who contribute through their own political faith to the funds that are needed to keep a station going.
The expenses of keeping a station are not small. To make a station almost the political platform of an individual is, to say the least, unethical.
I was told the story of an influential personality in southern Italy who ran his own private TV station. He owned it, was on it most of the time, showed that he had muscle, and made a name for himself. The judiciary knew a lot about his personal history, but the electors were happy to vote him in, whatever the authorities knew. He was "the personality".
Hijacking the media is not solved simply by making it illegal to have political advertising for an individual candidate.
Election expenses
I am raising these issues now with a specific purpose. That of reform. It is ridiculous to have MPs and potential MPs swearing on oath that they spent a few hundred liri on their electoral campaign when it is widely known that they spent thousands upon thousands. Not all, let us make that clear.
The extent of pampering the constituents is overflowing like a stinking sink. Everybody notices, it is good business for some, it makes the atmosphere rather more jolly during election time, and why should anyone bother to overturn the applecart when there are people who are eating apples on the right and on the left?