The Prime Minister must be feeling really proud. Having steered through Parliament both the Bill removing the Statute of Limitation from cases of corruption and the Whistleblower Bill, at a recent press conference he presented the third piece of legislation – the one regulating party financing. The government compared this valiant fight against corruption with what the Nationalists had done before him, with a Permanent Commission against Corruption that never, in 25 years – he claimed – produced a report leading to an indictment.

The present government has, of course, made sure that this continues to be the case by failing to appoint new members to the Commission since November. One wonders why this state of affairs is allowed to exist. However ineffective Labour thinks this Commission is, it is certainly not alien to what Americans would call the “lame duck” appointments of people who generously lent their faces to the party’s campaign last year.

But the point is that if Labour’s standard is the number of indictments, Dr Muscat should note well that his two vaunted pieces of legislation have, so far, led to none.

 

Keeping them honest

But back to the issue of political party financing. Yes, this had been on the agenda for years. But it’s not as if the Nationalist Party did not make serious attempts to regulate the situation when it was in office. That we do not have the legislation on the statute books is down to the fact that the Nationalist government wanted consensus on such a fundamental matter to Malta’s democratic life.

The Nationalist Party has a clear conscience on this. Ours must be the only party – anywhere, ever – that faced the risk of bankruptcy despite having been in office for a quarter of a century. On the other hand, Labour went into Opposition in the 1980s with a property portfolio that would make a real estate agent blush. Yes, the 1980s are a long time ago, but the PL is still reaping the dividends from those days when it helped itself to the contents of the till.

 

The price of a well-functioning democracy

Introducing limits on anonymous donations and, more generally, on donations that are allowed is fine. It offers some reassurance that no donation is big enough to skew and determine a party’s policies (especially of the party in government) in favour of vested interests and at the expense of the common good.

That is not enough. Honesty, independence, fairness – these are all fundamental values in politics. But although they may be necessary, they are not sufficient elements for good governance in an age when public policy and administration have become so specialist and technical. This is why the Nationalist Party proposed that the law should not only restrict what funds the parties themselves may raise but also public support for the public function provided by political outfits.

Now this view has been grossly misrepresented in the media, presenting a caricature of what was proposed. The Nationalist Party is not after a bail-out or the use of taxpayers’ money in campaigning. What it has asked for is the kind of support, offered in most EU countries including parties in the EP, in order to research and develop policies and the accompanying administrative support that would be required.

 

Pandering to the gallery

Politics can no longer afford to be poorly informed; policies need to be evidence-based. Unfortunately, despite small improvements over the years, not only is Parliament under-sourced but parliamentary groups and individual MPs have nowhere to turn to for studies, facts and research other than a Google search.

Since the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, our Parliament is also supposed to offer its opinion on the Commission’s proposals. If the quality of our opinions falls below what is expected, this is not just a case of risking a loss of reputation but also missing an opportunity to speak out in a way that can earn us respect. But, even down at the most local of levels, we need the right sociological, environmental and legislative knowledge to make sure we are making the best decisions. The days of simply pandering to the gallery are over.

 

The rich party of the poor

The Labour Party not only has the support of the previously much-loathed ‘barons’ and fat cats, but – as already argued – the Labour government has, without any scruples, given the Labour Party public land and buildings to house its political and commercial operations. One TV is housed in a government-owned factory and numerous local party clubs are still operating from expropriated buildings. The Australia Hall and adjacent land valued at a ten million euros is also at the Labour Party’s disposal. No wonder the Labour Party is in no need of further transparent state aid to conduct its operations. This severely contrasts with the Nationalist Party’s position who is going through challenging times, to say the least, following the rebuilding of its headquarters including its media studios.

It is therefore evident that the Political Parties will not be starting on an equal footing once this piece of legislation is enacted.  It risks creating a serious democratic deficit.

 

Clyde Puli is the Shadow Minister for the Family and Social Solidarity