19th April 2009
The Malta Independent on Sunday
You would not expect
a PN candidate for the MEP elections to make the case for more transparency in
political party financing as a platform for his election bid. The PN has done
pretty nothing to implement the very limited and insufficient measures proposed
in the Galdes Report to bring some order to this very obscure corner of our
political reality. And MEPs have often come in for criticism about the perks
attached to their jobs. which entitlements are often shrouded in
obscurity.
Yet, Alan Deidun, a PN MEP candidate, wrote as follows in The Times this week (extract):
“Party funding: Publish those names!”
“Local parties have been solicited to publish the names of their financers for donkey’s years now, to no avail.
“A threshold could be introduced to weed out from the list the non-commercial entities contributing insignificant financial sums, to avoid disclosing the identity of all the John Citizens out there and thus maintain the popular party-funding mechanisms.”
“All political parties should implement the recommendations of the Galdes Commission, concerning political party financing, so that Maltese citizens can get to know where loyalties actually lie. Codes of conduct and guidelines on ethical behaviour have been issued for candidates contesting the impending European Parliament elections – it’s high time that the same guidelines are issued for the political parties themselves.
“It’s been often mooted that the construction industry is the real kitty behind both parties – the time is ripe to confirm or dispel such a hypothesis.”
I have touched on this subject quite often in my writings. It is clear that there is inertia from our political parties, which seem happy with the status quo. This is incomprehensible especially from Labour’s side. The PN has been in government for a generation. From its position of power it had, and still has, every opportunity to maximise resources to gain advantage over Labour. And availability of resources does make a difference. Election campaigns, especially if professionally run, do not come cheap.
Why Labour have not shown much enthusiasm for addressing this scourge is more difficult to fathom. Could it be that expectations that it would soon be its turn in government tempered Labour’s determination to force change as it (wrongly) assumed that it would soon be its turn to cash in from tenure of power?
In truth, the new Labour leader has included this matter in the agenda of the parliamentary select committee that is exploring and reporting on ways to improve the workings of democracy. However, months are rolling by and we have yet pretty little to show for it except some sole initiative by some low ranking party official making a half-hearted appeal to bring the country into the 21st century in so far as party financing is concerned.
Our democracy can never be considered as working effectively unless we dispel the theory of “‘he who pays the piper plays the tune” by revolutionising the way our political parties finance themselves.
To my mind there is only one way that gives a fair chance for this to be achieved. Abolish all kinds of political donations. All means all, from telethon collections to private donations. Political parties are the major instruments through which democracy is exercised and it is fair and just that the State, which benefits so much from the workings of a proper democracy, takes direct responsibility for political party financing. This will achieve maximum transparency as State funding will be controlled by and accounted to the National Audit Office, which will report its findings to Parliament on a regular basis.Any threshold, below which any donations would go unreported, even if low, will be a sure invitation for donations to be structured below such threshold to escape reporting. So to avoid this risk and the arbitrariness of fixing the level of such a threshold, there simply must be no threshold.
Any threshold, below which any donations would go unreported, even if low, will be a sure invitation for donations to be structured below such threshold to escape reporting. So to avoid this risk and the arbitrariness of fixing the level of such a threshold, there simply must be no threshold.
All donations must be abolished and the political parties’ only source of income other than State financing would be the normal fees paid by registered members. No lotteries, no collections, no fund-raising activities!
Free from the headaches of struggling to find the means to finance their operations, the political parties should focus on their core business, i.e. that of being political parties. Political parties should not be media companies, travel agents, or communication services providers. What sense does it make to pursue a process where, after the government, having divested through privatisation most of its operational functions, we see political parties expanding their activities into such same operational functions? If political parties are allowed to perform, directly or through subsidiaries, any such commercial activities, it would be an quite easy to obtain donations under the guise of commercial payments to escape the limitations that may be set for direct financing rules. So any reform involving party financing must compulsorily include control over the activities of commercially operating subsidiaries, and the best control is total abolishment.
Such a revolutionary approach would bring into question the parties’ access to mass media. We must be quite unique in having the two main political parties operating their own radio and television mass media. With the benefit of having 17 years’ experience where political parties own and control their own mass media, we can draw conclusions whether this has helped the proper working of democracy, whether this has served to polarise the electorate or has aided the electorate to be better informed with a cross section of views from the different political factions.
The time has come for this 17-year experiment to be re-thought. While the fact that political parties need access to the media is unquestionable, the need for them to own and control their own media is much less evident. The growth of electronic means of communication reduces the need for the traditional mass media, and the Broadcasting Authority should provide political parties balanced access to such media without the need for direct ownership.
This country cannot continue to be conditioned by party-owned media to live five-year-long election campaigns. There is time for politics in the run up to an election but there is time for a normal life away from political pressure and coloured perceptions in the years between an election. During these in between years our people must be entertained and educated to have the analytical skills to make a positive objective choice when they exercise their ultimate democratic right through the ballot box.
Addressing the party-financing scourge must be a priority objective if we are to have a democracy that truly works. It has been left purposely on the back burner for far too long. It is time to bring it to the forefront in a serious way, which includes the total abolition of political donations.
Yet, Alan Deidun, a PN MEP candidate, wrote as follows in The Times this week (extract):
“Party funding: Publish those names!”
“Local parties have been solicited to publish the names of their financers for donkey’s years now, to no avail.
“A threshold could be introduced to weed out from the list the non-commercial entities contributing insignificant financial sums, to avoid disclosing the identity of all the John Citizens out there and thus maintain the popular party-funding mechanisms.”
“All political parties should implement the recommendations of the Galdes Commission, concerning political party financing, so that Maltese citizens can get to know where loyalties actually lie. Codes of conduct and guidelines on ethical behaviour have been issued for candidates contesting the impending European Parliament elections – it’s high time that the same guidelines are issued for the political parties themselves.
“It’s been often mooted that the construction industry is the real kitty behind both parties – the time is ripe to confirm or dispel such a hypothesis.”
I have touched on this subject quite often in my writings. It is clear that there is inertia from our political parties, which seem happy with the status quo. This is incomprehensible especially from Labour’s side. The PN has been in government for a generation. From its position of power it had, and still has, every opportunity to maximise resources to gain advantage over Labour. And availability of resources does make a difference. Election campaigns, especially if professionally run, do not come cheap.
Why Labour have not shown much enthusiasm for addressing this scourge is more difficult to fathom. Could it be that expectations that it would soon be its turn in government tempered Labour’s determination to force change as it (wrongly) assumed that it would soon be its turn to cash in from tenure of power?
In truth, the new Labour leader has included this matter in the agenda of the parliamentary select committee that is exploring and reporting on ways to improve the workings of democracy. However, months are rolling by and we have yet pretty little to show for it except some sole initiative by some low ranking party official making a half-hearted appeal to bring the country into the 21st century in so far as party financing is concerned.
Our democracy can never be considered as working effectively unless we dispel the theory of “‘he who pays the piper plays the tune” by revolutionising the way our political parties finance themselves.
To my mind there is only one way that gives a fair chance for this to be achieved. Abolish all kinds of political donations. All means all, from telethon collections to private donations. Political parties are the major instruments through which democracy is exercised and it is fair and just that the State, which benefits so much from the workings of a proper democracy, takes direct responsibility for political party financing. This will achieve maximum transparency as State funding will be controlled by and accounted to the National Audit Office, which will report its findings to Parliament on a regular basis.Any threshold, below which any donations would go unreported, even if low, will be a sure invitation for donations to be structured below such threshold to escape reporting. So to avoid this risk and the arbitrariness of fixing the level of such a threshold, there simply must be no threshold.
Any threshold, below which any donations would go unreported, even if low, will be a sure invitation for donations to be structured below such threshold to escape reporting. So to avoid this risk and the arbitrariness of fixing the level of such a threshold, there simply must be no threshold.
All donations must be abolished and the political parties’ only source of income other than State financing would be the normal fees paid by registered members. No lotteries, no collections, no fund-raising activities!
Free from the headaches of struggling to find the means to finance their operations, the political parties should focus on their core business, i.e. that of being political parties. Political parties should not be media companies, travel agents, or communication services providers. What sense does it make to pursue a process where, after the government, having divested through privatisation most of its operational functions, we see political parties expanding their activities into such same operational functions? If political parties are allowed to perform, directly or through subsidiaries, any such commercial activities, it would be an quite easy to obtain donations under the guise of commercial payments to escape the limitations that may be set for direct financing rules. So any reform involving party financing must compulsorily include control over the activities of commercially operating subsidiaries, and the best control is total abolishment.
Such a revolutionary approach would bring into question the parties’ access to mass media. We must be quite unique in having the two main political parties operating their own radio and television mass media. With the benefit of having 17 years’ experience where political parties own and control their own mass media, we can draw conclusions whether this has helped the proper working of democracy, whether this has served to polarise the electorate or has aided the electorate to be better informed with a cross section of views from the different political factions.
The time has come for this 17-year experiment to be re-thought. While the fact that political parties need access to the media is unquestionable, the need for them to own and control their own media is much less evident. The growth of electronic means of communication reduces the need for the traditional mass media, and the Broadcasting Authority should provide political parties balanced access to such media without the need for direct ownership.
This country cannot continue to be conditioned by party-owned media to live five-year-long election campaigns. There is time for politics in the run up to an election but there is time for a normal life away from political pressure and coloured perceptions in the years between an election. During these in between years our people must be entertained and educated to have the analytical skills to make a positive objective choice when they exercise their ultimate democratic right through the ballot box.
Addressing the party-financing scourge must be a priority objective if we are to have a democracy that truly works. It has been left purposely on the back burner for far too long. It is time to bring it to the forefront in a serious way, which includes the total abolition of political donations.
No comments:
Post a Comment