This summer, we have been regaled with the political parties’ scramble to distance themselves from the Gaffarena family while accusing the other side of cosying up to it.
The saga highlighted a very worrying state of affairs in Maltese political life: the unhealthy relationship between business interests and political parties.
Political parties are an essential component of a healthy and functioning democracy. They are also large enterprises that require significant financial resources. The question is: where do they get their money from? Why do individuals and, especially, business concerns donate money, sometimes good money, to political parties? Are there any strings attached?
Considering the general mistrust in political parties, it seems rather odd that there exist people and businessmen that are so generous in their donations to these organisations.
During the public consultation on party financing by the Galdes Commission in the mid-1990s, several social partners expressed their strong position against donations to political parties. The then Federation of Industry had written: “We firmly believe that, if at all possible, any funding by individuals and enterprises to any political party should be illegal. This will especially help local companies to be transparent and the government and the Opposition to be less liable to favour individ-uals or companies.”
The last act of Parliament before rising for the summer recess was the unanimous approval of the Bill regulating the financing of political parties. This law prohibits political parties from receiving “donations which are evidently made in the expectation of, or in return for, some specific financial or political advantage”. Political parties are now bound to register donations above €500, disclose the identity of donors and cannot receive more than €25,000 annually from the same donor. Donations from unknown sources are banned and proper accounting and auditing systems must be kept.
Many would certainly welcome these developments and consider them a step in the right direction. However, they are not enough. The government and the Opposition should now double their efforts to deal with the elements they still do not agree upon.
The Electoral Commission is set to be regulator but it is doubtful whether it is best suited to serve such purpose.
It is common knowledge that the Electoral Commission is de facto composed of representatives of the two major parties: five members representing the party in government and four being Opposition representatives. It will now be entrusted to regulate these same parties.
It is crucial that a regulator enjoys the trust of the whole society and not just of the political parties, however representative of the people they may be.
Another flaw is the government’s rejection of proposals to cap electoral spending. Elections should not be investment opportunities and should not be bankrolled by powerful interests. A decent society does not allow a party with access to the most funds to simply buy its way into power. A democracy cannot function when its constituent members believe that governments can be bought and sold.
Within this context, discussions should start on the State funding of political parties, obviously in a transparent and accountable manner.
Political parties are an essential component of democracy and they require financial resources to function. Shady financing of political parties will cost much more than State financing.