The election last March was “peaceful” and “professional”, according to a leading democracy watchdog, but the island should now prioritise a law on party financing and the decriminalisation of defamation.
The lack of comprehensive and effective campaign finance regulations raised certain concerns
This was the first time the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE/ODIHR) monitored Malta’s general election, though it had also observed the 2009 MEP election.
“The entire electoral process commanded a high level of public confidence. The campaign took place in an open and peaceful environment with no restrictions on freedoms of association or expression,” the watchdog said
“However, the lack of comprehensive and effective campaign finance regulations raised certain concerns among many interlocutors about transparency, particularly for non-parliamentary parties.”
The report highlighted the fact that women were under-represented in politics, making up only 15 per cent of candidates. Moreover, several women candidates complained of “often” being faced by voters who questioned their place in politics rather than dedicating themselves to a more traditional role of taking care of the family.
“Consideration could be given to introducing measures to promote women candidates. The General Elections Act could be updated to apply gender sensitive language. Political parties could also consider nominating a minimum number of candidates of each gender,” it said.
The report said Malta’s media environment was “pluralistic and diverse”, providing voters with a wide range of information on candidates and campaign issues.
However, people who spoke to the observers expressed strong feelings that the State media were “heavily biased in favour of the Nationalist Party”. Another problem was the composition of the Broadcasting Authority, which was biased in favour of the two dominant parties.
The report point out that, contrary to “international good practice on freedom of expression”, defamation in Malta remains a criminal offence, which could create obstacles to professional and effective journalism.
Besides urging the authorities to decriminalise defamation as one of its “priority recommendations”, the report also called for a “comprehensive system for regulating party and campaign financing”.
“Consideration could be given to both candidates and political parties to provide regular detailed reports on their campaign income and expenses within an acceptable time limit. These could be made public, in a timely manner, in order to improve transparency and accountability,” it said.
“All interlocutors regarded the transparency of donations as one of the main issues that need to be addressed in order for voters to be properly informed and to minimise perceptions of businesses purchasing political influence,” it added.
While legal limits on campaign expenses for individual candidates existed, there were no such ceilings on party expenditures, leading to a “distorted” electoral campaign that disproportionately favoured the two well-resourced parliamentary parties.
“In order to provide for a more level playing field during election campaigns, it is important that campaign finance provisions are clearly defined and separated from regular party operations.”
Candidates and parties could be subject to effective and proportionate sanctions should they violate campaign finance laws, the report proposed.
Another of its priority recommendations was to make further efforts to ensure vote secrecy for all voters with special needs. “This could include allowing such voters to select a person of their own choice to assist them in casting their vote.”