A democratic system of government is a privilege that should be cherished by any modern society that expects its political and civil rights to be guaranteed by its politicians. Such a democratic system can only function effectively over any length of time if political parties are morally and financially strong enough to provide genuine solutions to the challenges facing the society that they serve.
The Evaluation Report on Malta on Transparency and Party Funding compiled by the Group of States against Corruption (Greco) has exposed a few raw nerves in our system of party funding. While the Maltese have proven to be one of the most committed people to political democracy, as evidenced by their unusually high electoral participation, the funding of parties is fundamentally flawed because "there are no restrictions in respect to financial contributions to political parties or election candidates".
According to this report this system is contrary to Council of Europe recommendations on common rules against corruption in the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns.
Parties in Malta depend on private donations and their own commercial activities to finance their operations and campaigns. They only receive about €100,000 annually from public funds to meet a very small part of their recurrent expenses. Moreover, anonymous donations are allowed without any restrictions. Political parties are also not obliged to keep accounting records or to have them independently audited.
Their heavy dependence on unregulated private financing could be a threat to the soundness of our democracy. The Greco report has commented that they were made aware of "unsubstantiated reports in the media of links between the financial contributions and political decision making". Even if some may claim that this is just a perception, it is a serious enough risk that needs to be managed by proper regulations aimed at promoting openness and transparency in the financing of political parties.
The actual method of financing parties through public funds is less important than the establishment of sound principles that should underpin such financing. Such principles should include the issue of equality of opportunities in the field of political funding of parties. Funding should therefore be based on a system that compensates political parties according to their measurable electoral performance but also "enables new parties to enter the political arena and to compete under fair conditions..."
Another measure that will help to establish transparency would be the publication of names of donors who make contributions above a certain reasonable limit.
Once such a public funding system is agreed to, it is imperative that Parliament legislates to make mandatory the publication of political financing accounts in order to facilitate the public's access to such documents. Similar provisions are needed to update the current archaic system of regulation on individual candidates' electoral expenses.
The Parliamentary Select Committee that was established in 2008 with the objective of strengthening parliamentary democracy needs to give priority to the compilation of new rules for the public financing of political parties.
The public's faith in our democratic parliamentary system can only be enhanced by a system of party financing built on openness and transparency. Public money spent to establish and support such a system will be money well spent.