What a week that was! Reaction to the government’s agreement with db group, the PN’s spat with the group, financing of political parties, anger of Nationalist supporters, a string of press conferences by PL and hotter-than-usual debates on the social media crowded the political agenda; though I believe Dwejra beat them all.

Let us look at the main actors.

Government is undoubtedly the protagonist. All spin and valid arguments about the PN vs db group should take second place to one stark and crude reality: the sale of the ITS land to db at, according to many except government and the group – a fraction of its real worth.

Although, some say, the land’s value is €200 million, it was sold to Silvio Debono for €60 million. To make matters worse, it turned out that Debono will be only paying €15 million over a period of seven years interest free. Quite a bargain, isn’t it?

The Chamber of Commerce and the Malta Developers Association objected to the price tag. The Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association described it as “ridiculous”. According to the Times of Malta, entrepreneurs in the property development industry dubbed the agreed price as “obscene”.

This week the government mounted a well-managed campaign to turn people’s attention away from this controversial deal to the financial contribution by Debono’s group to the Nationalist Party. It succeeded. But when the dust eventually settles on this controversy, constituted bodies, civil society and many common citizens will still rightfully demand an answer. Is the price being asked for just, “obscene” or “ridiculous”?

If satisfactory answers are not given fast, no one can blame people for reaching the conclusion that this deal – like others before it – did not give taxpayer good value for their money.

DB Group is another important actor in the saga. When Simon Busuttil said on Sunday that his party was going to ask the Auditor General to investigate the agreement, db welcomed the suggestion in a textbook case of good public relations.

But then it went ballistic. It privately asked Busuttil to return their donations. Busuttil correctly read the message as a retaliation and a threat. He publicly condemned it. The group upped the ante claiming they were covering the salaries of the secretary general of the PN and that of the CEO of Media.link. The PN denied this. Former secretary general Chris Said described this as an outright lie, saying he never received a salary.

The db group then claimed the invoices from Media.link for roughly €70,000 in advertising were fake. This statement incriminates the group. Paying for false invoices which one assumes were then incorporated in the expenses of the company and against which taxes were deducted is a criminal offence.

When push comes to shove, the Nationalist Party chooses principles over money

Why did the group completely change its tune? Why were they ready to bite their nose (admitting to criminal action) to spite the PN? Why did they crazily embroil their project in political controversy, allegations of corruption and criminal actions when they plan to launch a bond issue?

It is obvious that the company did not go through all this trouble because of a burning desire to behave ethically or to out the truth. Big-moneyed bullies rarely suffer bouts of good conscience. Was it just a manifestation of machoism? Or were they pushed by government to alienate people from the suspect deal? If this is the case then the credibility of anything they said is gravely compromised.

The media are also important actors. Coverage was intense and varied. There were some very good commentaries and analysis of the issues but a good part of the coverage showed that the media were passing through another Arloġġ tal-Lira moment.

Labour politicians milked the controversy. Bully for them and full marks for doing so. However, the daily press conferences repeating the same message did have to them an echo of Clinton’s famous uttering: I did not have sex with that woman.

The PN had a central positioning in this roller-coaster week. Supporters were angry and frustrated. Many felt disappointed while others felt betrayed. How could their party accept donations from Silvio Debono? The PN leadership answered that although it accepts contributions from all, no one could influence its policies. When push came to shove, the party chooses principles over money.

Political parties do need donations, and need these aplenty. But as soon as they start accusing an individual or a company of doubtful dealings or corruption they should stop accepting donations from those quarters.

Really and truly this places the PN at a great disadvantage as under this government the list of such cases increases every day. Besides, the government uses public coffers to generously fatten the purse of the Partit Laburista and associates. But the PN and democracy-loving individuals have to be ready to pay a high price to safeguard the integrity of the party and of our political system.

This issue goes beyond the PN and cannot be solved by moaners, armchair critics or inane do-gooders. A healthy democracy costs money. If voters really want political parties to operate independently of big business they should be ready either to crowdfund them or support a system of state subsidies or do both. All these systems have their plusses and minuses.

On the other hand, the present system whereby political parties are forced to depend on money from big business, has only minuses. It has been said that he who sups with the devil should have a long spoon. Experience is now showing that those who sup with big-moneyed bullies need a longer spoon.

Democracy can only succeed when those around the table can eat with normal spoons.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt