It’s not easy to attract donations for any cause these days – least of all for political parties. There are hundreds of more worthy charitable causes competing for donations and the time-honoured raffles, bake sales and sponsored walks just don’t manage to attract the big money needed to run huge organisations such as political parties.

This is why our politicians fight tooth and nail to retain any advantage they may have in the fundraising field. I imagine that this is the reason why the Justice Minister vehemently opposed the proposal to cap the spending of political parties during electoral campaigns.

The idea behind having limits on spending is to have a financially level playing field for the parties contesting the election – or at least, a scenario where the parties contesting can come within reach of each other when it comes to spending. This prevents special interest groups from effectively taking over a political party and buying their way into government.

The Minister for Justice doesn’t agree with this. According to him, smaller parties should find ways and means to make their polices more appealing to the electorate, saying this automatically would increase their support and consequently increase their revenue from donations. This reasoning is based on the ‘survival of the fittest’ theory.

Simply stated, it would mean that the political parties with the most attractive policies attract the most donors, the most voters, and get elected to office. Except that it doesn’t quite work out like that.

What happens is that special interest groups and lobbies or individuals engage in frenzied pre-electoral negotiations with both the Nationalist and Labour parties. These groups then give their electoral and financial support to the political party that promises the best deal. As the writer Ambrose Bierce put it: “An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods.” It is a simple accounting transaction and has very little to do with good governance, transparency or the common good. These pre-electoral promises are always backroom deals and are eventually borne by the honest taxpayer who was not a party to them.

Special interest groups and lobbies or individuals engage in frenzied pre-electoral negotiations with both the Nationalist and Labour parties

Take the latest story that has come to light – that of the monti hawkers. Before the last election, both the PN and the Labour Party promised the monti hawkers that they would be relocated to Ordnance Street. The PN promise came in the form of an e-mail on election day.

The Labour one must have been a better deal because the hawkers seem to have gone with that. They are now outraged at what they see as the Labour government’s backtracking on its pre-electoral commitment to relocate the stalls to Ordnance Street and next to the Parliament building.

Somebody in the Labour administration needs to be given a new measuring tape because it is quite clear that the present monti stalls can’t all fit on one side of Ordnance Street.

So there are three options for the Labour government.

The first is that of reneging on its pre-electoral promise to the monti hawkers and banking on them forgetting all this before the next election, and the second is that of allowing them to set up shop near Parliament and attracting the ire of those who object to such a placement.

The third option is that of paying some monti hawkers to give up their licences. The figure being mooted is that of €100,000 for every licence surrendered. Obviously this will be paid from State coffers – the same coffers filled by taxpayers who were not privy to the deal and not a party to it.

This kind of backroom deal is the rule, not the exception. The monti hawkers were not doing anything other than looking out for their own interests – a course of action also taken by the hunting lobby, and most spectacularly – by the construction lobby. It is how elections are won in Malta – not by having sustainable or forward-looking policies, but by selling out to the highest bidder.

The problems only arise once in office when the party in government has to make good on all its secret deals in full view of the electorate. That is when the chickens come home to roost.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt