When the people’s trust in politicians and in the political parties tends to diminish rather than increase, particularly in the wake of the attacks and counter-attacks on corruption, any attempt at bringing about a change for the better can only be welcome.
However, the way ahead appears to be getting more difficult as governing standards and political morality are put aside in the quest for greater popularity and votes in elections.
A law regulating political financing may be considered as a move meant to bolster the parties’ reputation, as one minister has put it, but, as is oft-repeated, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and it will take more than laws and codes of ethics to bring about the kind of culture change that is needed to restore greater trust in politicians and political parties.
When it has taken the political class so many years to get to a stage of passing a party financing law, it would be sad if no agreement is reached between the two main parties over the most important aspect of the law – the governing authority. The stand taken by the Opposition is most valid.
The fact that the Justice Minister appears to have ‘run out of excuses’ for the delay in the enactment of the law is no reason for not giving it further consideration. It would be most unwise not to have the widest possible consensus over such a sensitive piece of legislation.
The Labour Party believes the work ought to be entrusted to the Electoral Commission but the Opposition prefers to have a parliamentary commissioner. Justice Minister Owen Bonnici said the commission had been around for many years and “if we want this law to succeed we need an experienced authority that has worked with both parties”.
The argument is not strong enough, more so when considering that, all too often, one party or another expresses lack of trust in the commission. It is important that whoever takes up the work enjoys the confidence of all. It would therefore seem best to have a parliamentary commissioner, as suggested by the Opposition.
This newspaper is strongly against the proliferation of quangos. However, in view of the importance of having an authority that is as far away as possible from direct political influence, this is one case where an exception perhaps ought to be made.
The Opposition made a more forceful argument in favour of having a parliamentary commissioner who, it feels, ought to be appointed and removed by a two-thirds majority of the House. He would be answerable to Parliament in the same way as both the Ombudsman and Auditor General are.
Chris Said, speaking for the Opposition, said that if responsibility for the work were to be entrusted to the commission, minds would not be at ease as sensitive information could end up in the hands of opponents.
Alternattiva Demokratika deputy chairman Carmel Cacopardo had a strong point too when he said that if the overseeing was done by the commission the two parties would end up controlling all the information, even of parties not represented in Parliament.
The Group of States against Corruption (Greco) of the Council of Europe feels that, when enacted, the draft law will represent a “decisive step” in the setting up of a national legal framework regulating political financing. However, it also pointed out that some “critical areas” have yet to be seen to.
Time needs to be found to deal with these critical areas (if they have not been dealt with already) and, also, with the governing authority.