Wednesday, 30th January 2008
What candidates spend on elections
Last Thursday, January 24, Georg Sapiano, a Nationalist candidate on the Swieqi - Madliena - San Gwann - Gharghur - Gzira - Ta' Xbiex district wrote to The Times a letter titled "Candidate's spending limit." The letter starts by showing that a claim made by Harry Vassallo, leader of Alternattiva Demokratika is incorrect. But it progresses and concludes by presenting the moral dilemma he is in.
As a new candidate for the general elections he feels the need and the duty to communicate with the electorate. On the other hand, he, and all those who are contesting the elections, are faced with a law which makes effective communication impossible.
I had addressed the topic in my blog of December 18, 2007.
The entire cost of a candidate's effort to win a seat in parliament is regulated by the Electoral (Polling) Ordinance. This imposes a spending limit of 1,398 euros on anything done in the conduct or management of a candidate's electoral bid. The sum is manifestly inadequate.
The law is very specific. It declares that the spending limit applies to all payments made by: the candidate or by his election agent, or by any persons on behalf of the candidate, or in his interest, for expenses incurred on account of, or in respect of, the conduct and management of the election".
A number of politicians are under the impression that this limit only starts when the elections are called and applies for the 30 days of a campaign. Nowhere in the law is there that sort of stipulation, though I hasten to add that I don’t know whether there were any specific cases in court which gave some form of interpretation or another.
Well, 31 days after the election results are published every candidate is required to submit a sworn statement of expenses, before a magistrate, showing that he or she did not spend more than the prescribed amount. If that statement is not made, or made falsely, the sanction is to lose your seat in Parliament! If you have not been elected the sanction is a fine of up to €465.87. In both cases, you are struck off the voters list for four years.
To my knowledge, no-one from the Electoral Commission ever checks what anyone did or spent in a campaign. The police are not asked to investigate and the Attorney-General is never asked to prosecute. Basically, it seems that the sworn statement is regularly accepted as irrefutable evidence.
Though it is amply clear that almost all candidates would have surely spent more than the amount stipulated by law the same do not find any problem to take this oath. I cannot fathom how this is morally possible. Does this mean that so many take false oaths? Who am I to judge? I would prefer to believe that they find comfort in some legalistic interpretation that justifies their conscience. But I do hope that all treat this as a matter of conscience.
The role of conscience in public life
Cynics may say that I take this topic on only to help the cause of a friend of mine. I do not hide the fact that Georg is a close friend if mine. It is public knowledge. We have known each others for many years. We produced and presented together TV and radio programmes. I officiated at his marriage ceremony and baptised his children.
The law about spending by political candidates will not be changed before the election. I am not therefore writing hoping for change now. I am raising this subject to highlight another more important subject. The role of one’s religious beliefs and conscience when one seeks public office.
In the last three or four years I spent hours discussing with Georg the moral implications and possible dilemmas that Christians may encounter when they set their lives on a political trajectory. Let me just mention a few others besides the one outlined above: the balance between power and service; the ego trip versus the altruistic one; legislation and public policy in a pluralistic environment; populist solutions which reap immediate electoral support versus long term goals which are unpopular but reap long term benefits; the common good versus sectarian benefits. The areas of family polity, bioethics, just economic systems, the rights of future generations and issues relating to various aspects of diversity area among the important areas that have to be faced by those whom we elect in the coming elections. It is not easy to be a good Christian and a good politician as it is not easy to be a good Christian.
The US bishops’ document
Many I propose to prospective and established electoral candidates that they read a document published on November 14, 2007 by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops? It is titled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States.”
Reading the documents will not get them any votes as reading, for example, a book on how to persuade voters, will. But standing for elections is not just about winning votes at all costs. It also means standing for principles and values.
I do not have the web address readily available but a search in Google will take only a couple of minutes. Those who find that difficult can contact me on joseph.borg@um.edu.mt">joseph.borg@um.edu.mt and I will send them an electronic copy.
RSS
Comments
It's somewhat clearer what you meant and even though you make a good point, I'm not so sure I agree.
What it comes down to is the use of labels in (political) discussions. It's true that you can swing a word around, alter it's meaning and use it in different terms, which is why I feel it's important to keep the meaning of a word like "secular" at all costs. Trying to make it more nuanced would just provide further fuel for the fire, rather than challenging the use of the word from the beginning. If someone uses a word out of context or out of it's meaning, they undermine their own opinions.
While I doubt it's very tough for anyone to be christian right now in Malta, I have a feeling that it's a coming struggle. The majority of the civilised world is turning more secular and rather than fighting against this change Christians everywhere have a duty to take the best parts of their morality and apply it in such ways to make things better, while still accepting that certain teachings have to be left behind. Christians have a tendency to pretend that their moral values and teachings are absolute and timeless, but you don't have to look far back to see this is not the case (fortunately enough). All it takes is for people to open their eyes, look at the world around them and just try to make the best they can of it. If you do that through a christians eyes, an atheists eyes or a Muslims eyes doesn't matter.
I have a feeling we have the same goals, just on slightly different paths.
Besides, if someone calls me a relativist, I'll take that as a compliment :)
I should probably explain what I meant by 'it's a non-issue'. I absolutely agree with you that the Church-state debate is hugely important. What I mean is that politically this is a non-issue in Malta: a very comfortable status quo exists which is beneficial to all powerful parties involved – PN, MLP and the Church. In other words, we don't have no Zapatero. Besides, liberal intellectuals are a very rare breed of creature on the island. They're often dismissed with the words 'arrogant', 'relativist' and occasionally 'ignorant'.
I believe that the 'secular'/'non-secular' dichotomy is a trap which is useful to those who would like to maintain the status quo in Malta. This becomes obvious when you see that intelligent people are happy to state, simply, that 'Malta is meant to be secular' when they wish to challenge, say, the fact that Malta has no divorce legislation. 'Meant to be secular' begs the question entirely: the argument goes round in circles leaving things exactly where they were. That's why I think that placing the debate in a different light is crucial.
Finally, I'm not sure that I agree with Fr. Joe that being a Christian is any more difficult than simply being human. Or that being a Christian politician is particularly tough: in a place like Malta politicians are actually quite happy to wear their belief on their sleeve, and to act accordingly. Challenging the status quo on matters religious is tantamount to political suicide – in fact, nobody does it.
The whole problem with church based values is the notion that truths, values and morals are completely absolute, derived from god and needs no further motivation than that, which gives people the idea that they have the right to dictate, for example, people's personal life. Why does anyone think that they have the right to dictate how and with whom two consenting adults have sex and how does anyone think they can dictate for how long two people need to remain married? The limitation of education received can also clearly be seen, especially when I realised the frightening fact that my wife was taught in school (this is less than a decade ago) that men have one rib less than women. Only in a faith based country would such a thing not lead to the immediate dismissal of that teacher.
Let's go back to the three nuances you created for the topic. Looking at the first step makes your, so called, more nuanced light, quite absurd. You stack in the same category countries which clearly separates the state from religious activity (France, US, Mexico etc), with countries which dictates them (Cuba, China, North Korea).
The second a country dictates the religious values of it's people it would be considered non secular. Also stating that these communist states are based on atheistic or agnostic ideologies shows complete lack of insight. Cuba and China is based on communism. North Korea on some absurd leader worship, where Kim Jong-Il is considered next to divine. Nothing secular about that. How you also manage to fit Malta into both your latter categories is beyond me.
I don't expect any other candidates to join in this controversy. The real practical solution is for the law to be amended so that the limit is not a fixed sum but a factor of an MP's annual salary (a ratio of anything from 0.5 to 1 would make sense). In this way the limit moves and increases with the MP's salary - sorry honorarium (!) and the law need not be amended every time the cost of living goes up... which if you believe Alfred Sant happens every five minutes.
There's also this mistaken view that states neatly fall into the 'secular' or 'non-secular' categories.
Things should be seen in a rather more nuanced light:
Separation - No official State religion. Private law governs religious matters. As the US experience has shown, this does not preclude political parties from leaning towards religious groups in terms of ideology. Three types of separation can be identified: Pure separation (France, the US, Mexico, Turkey). 'Agreed' separation based on a bilateral treaty between Church and State in which the Church is considered a legal entity governed by public law and is granted public funding (Germany, Austria, Croatia, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia). Hostile separation in which the State is based on an atheist or agnostic ideology and eliminates religion from public life (Cuba, China, North Korea)
Association - In which the State upholds a "national" religion (which establishes the identity of the nation) or an "official" religion. This may sit comfortably with freedom of conscience and a secular approach to civil status (civil marriage, divorce legislation, abortion etc) and the full respect of other religions (The United Kingdom, Finland, Denmark and others)
Collusion - The State purports to be the guarantor of one religion which is confused with the national identity. The clergy are civil servants and play a political role, religious doctrine is applied to civil status issues such as marriage, divorce and abortion. In some countries other beliefs are tolerated (Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Israel) while in others they are banned (Saudi Arabia). The Vatican is a case apart since it is the only true theocracy in the world: the spiritual and temporal are joined in the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff.
I think that Malta straddles the Association and Collusion categories rather nicely...
"(1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic
Religion.
(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church
have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and
which are wrong.
(3) Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith
shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory
education."
There is nothing secular about that. If Malta was a secular state, no support (or denial), should be endorsed by the state when it comes to question of religion. To top it off, it's declared that the authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church deems what is right and wrong.
I don't intend to change the constitution (there is a will, but I doubt there is a way), but at the same time it's absurd to call Malta secular.
Thus, I do not really follow why a candidate's personal religious beliefs should have anything to do with observing the law. Is Fr Joe implying that good Christians should not perjure themselves whereas non-Christians are free to do so ?
Being morally upright is not a Catholic prerogative and the inverse is also true : people professing Catholic (or Christian) beliefs do not necessarily behave in a morally upright manner.
Fr Joe also, somewhat belatedly, highlights the farcical state of our electoral funding laws. It has been pointed out that there are no restrictions on party financing or on the nature or extent of "donations" to such parties. Nor are there any restrictions on how much is spent by political parties, both on a recurrent basis and in electoral periods. It is an open secret that party leaders expect not so voluntary donations from commercial entities. Yet, individual candidates are hobbled by a ridiculous limit which, as Fr Joe pointed out, cannot really be observed. This notwithstanding, candidates invariably file a sworn declaration after the electoral campaign that the threshold of Lm 600 was not exceeded.
Anyone is free not to participate in such a farce. Or if one wishes to contest elections, to challenge it in court as suggested by Georg in his original piece. I urge him to do so : it is certainly an action of much more substance than the fireworks case. And as a party candidate he should feel no compunction to (or claim credit) challenge an administrative act (as he did in the fireworks case) or a law of the state as party and state do not mix (or so should it be).
When one sees the fuss being raised in the U.K. about political donations which has claimed the scalp of a senior minister, has derailed the Conservative Party and is threatening that of the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, and the seriousness with which perjury and obstruction of justice are treated in the US, it is clear what a deficient parliamentary democracy our country has, so deficient that the legitimacy of parliament itself is put in play.
Why not abolish this useless bit of legislation which no election candidate can observe even if he wanted to.
Like Fr Joe I too am an old friend of Georg's and close enough to know that all he has achieved is through the ruthless application of hard work and intelligence. With one proviso. He will never waiver his principles. Suffice two examples out of the many I know. I have seen him renounce to a deal simply because the other party wanted to evade tax. The second is of a more personal level. Sitting next to a prominent businessman on a flight, he was asked by the latter how and where would he have 'fun' that night. His answer; "Why, why should I?"
Within the context of the firm belief that his principles are not negotiable his letter on candidates 's spending and indeed his recent court case against the prime minister make sense.
Were there to be many in politics who took the same stance we'd all be a little better off.
This situation is very similar to the life of a thief, the first time he steals he would have his conscience hurting him, but once he goes beyond the point where he finds some sort of justification to his action, then stealing is no longer a bad deed.
be done just by hard work.
The issue which I cannot come to terms with is, how comfortable our candidates find it in their concience to lie under oath!
I wonder how many candidates were actually aware that this particular law existed in the first place ? Not many I suspect.
Georg Sapiano is a lawyer by profession and has access to the finer points of Maltese law whereas other candidates probably rely on what their party HQ’s choose to tell them of Maltese electoral laws. Let’s think about this for a second.
I live in the Sliema, St. Julians area and I’ve been submerged in political junk mail from the Nationalist and Labour camps alike (sorry Harry, no AD junk mail yet). Heck, I think I even received a CD or DVD of some sort from Francis Zammit Dimech.
Those mail-shots didn’t come free and almost certainly cost more than the €1,398 limit imposed by law. Now that we know this, what are we going to do about it ? Are we simply going to sit by and watch as our elected leaders (be they Nationalist, Labour or one of the other minor parties) make their false statements in front of a magistrate ?
The upcoming election is different than the last few that came before. There is no major issue to galvanize the voting public like EU accession or the fear of a return to Mintoffian policies. In such elections the honesty and personal integrity of the candidates is thrust into the limelight like never before and can determine whether they are elected into office or not.
Those who ignore this issue do so at their peril.
I believe that if placing candidates on an equal financial footing is what the current regulation intended to achieve, it would be more equitable to substantially increase the current spending limit, subject to the disclosure of all donations over a set minimum threshhold.
Whilst in an ideal world, elections should be won by honest and deserving politicians with sound policies and not by second-rate politicians with deeper pockets for glossier pamphlets, I believe that permitting ALL candidates to finance and promote their campaigns more effectively across the media spectrum would, even if only in a small way, lead to a fairer and more open electoral process.
Since its now practically impossible to have the law changed before the next election, what should candidates do? Contact only a small fraction of their constituents making it impossible to get elected or do as many others do and overspend the ridiculously low spending limit?
What is the point of having a successful election campaign which overspends the current personal spending limit but then after the election is over, the MP loses his parliamentary seat because of over-spending?
Otherwise you can always bypass this legal / administrative dilemma by taking false oath and creating at least a personal moral and ethical dilemma as well as a bad example in political ethics.
Browsed through the document briefly. I'm sure most people who have read my previous posts knows where I stand regarding religious involvment in state affairs, but saying that, from the outset the document seems to have at least a couple of good points. Will read it more in detail, but will probably refrain from commenting more on it. Not really my area.
I'm quite clueless as to the electoral spending laws in Malta, but by your brief description they seem like a great idea to spread outside Malta, especially across the Atlantic.
Still waiting for that Golden Compass review hehe.