With the Nationalist Party passing through a bad financial patch, it is not difficult to see why it is now proposing State funding for political parties. There are many strong arguments both for and against, but rushing headlong to make provisions for this in a Bill regulating party financing that is now before Parliament would not be the best way forward as the public has not had time to discuss the issue at length.

It is this reason, not the fact that Malta is already late in enacting such legislation, as the Justice Minister said, that counts most in the argument for delaying State funding for parties.

The PN, in a proposal that comes across as something of an afterthought, is suggesting State funding as a measure to safeguard democracy; however, this is debatable. It is also suggesting the setting up of a working group to go into the matter and make proposals, but, again, the one month timeframe it has put forward is not appropriate.

The government correctly argued the debate could not be limited to the two main parties. Indeed, the electorate ought to be given enough time to consider the implications of the issue before any decisions are taken. The fact that State funding already exists in a number of countries is no argument for rushing to make similar provisions. The central question is whether people in Malta agree with directly subsidising political parties.

Laws regulating party financing and State funding have not eliminated corruption, as scandals in a string of countries have shown over the years. Growing disenchantment with politicians everywhere ought to make politicians more sensitive to transparency and accountability, matters they pay lip service to but which they are often willing to let fall by the wayside, believing that people are all too ready to forgive them.

When MPs fail to follow even basic principles of transparency and accountability, such as when they do not submit their declaration of assets to Parliament in time, faith in their capacity to observe rules and regulations governing party financing dwindles.

So, in this respect, the government, was also right in arguing that, as a first step, political parties would be expected to demonstrate their commitment to financial transparency by abiding by the regulations listed in the Bill. The people who ought to get this message are MPs who recently failed to submit their declaration of assets in time.

One argument against State funding is that taxpayers are made to contribute, through their money, to a party or parties whose programme, views, or mode of governing run against their own. This raises fundamental issues in such a keen political environment as the one we have in Malta where strict “red” and “blue” demarcation lines have delineated the political landscape for so many years.

However, an argument for State funding is that it makes parties less dependent on donations and provides a level playing field. This sounds fair on paper, but does it eliminate corrupt practices? Political parties in Europe and elsewhere have tended to grow into mammoth organisations, with many even getting involved in businesses of some kind or other. They ought to have restricted themselves to the roles they were set up for and tried to live within their means.

Let’s have the debate by all means, but an issue like this is too important to be rushed.