Sixteen political parties registered in Great Britain reported receiving £26.3 million in donations between 1 April and 30 June 2010, according to new figures published by the Electoral Commission, the independent party-funding watchdog.
Total donations reported in the second quarter of 2010, a period that included the UK general election, are the highest on record. This is despite changes to legislation that mean that, since 1 January 2010, the threshold at which parties have to report donations has risen.
This disclosure by the Electoral Commission of donations to political parties has revived age-old questions about party funding reform. Of the £26.3 million-worth of gifts declared by 16 political parties in April, May and June, the Conservative Party received £12.3 million and Labour £10.9 million, with the Liberal Democrats struggling to compete with £2 million. As ever, the Tories’ main source of donations was wealthy individuals, while Labour received a mixture of funding from unions and individual donors.
In Malta, political party funding is still confined to the underworld. But it is becoming more and more clear in the entire western democratic world, that something must be done about it. In the UK, all three major parties have been caught up in funding scandals in recent years. But even when there is no outright scandal or suspicion of foul play, it is surely contrary to democratic principle that wealthy individuals and organisations should hold such sway over the political process.
The various angles of this problem are multiple. The UK Labour Party is on the brink of bankruptcy, with debts of £20 million. It does democracy little good when the second biggest party in any country may be effectively prevented from competing. This is also a problem locally, of course. Since money always follows power – in the hope of gaining influence – a party that looks doomed to a long period in the wilderness will suffer accordingly. Even when corruption is not direct and tangible – a new law, a government contract – it nevertheless exists in the way politicians anticipate the wishes of their paymasters and behave accordingly.
All sorts of proposals have been made for capping donations, increasing transparency and introducing some form of state funding. Political progress, if any, will invariably be slow, as any party will bitterly fight any reform it believes will disadvantage it financially. This has always been a case where democracy is an also-ran. But can any truly democratic state continue to be driven by a funding regime in which private donations continue to dominate the progress of legislation? Should it not rather be designed in such a way that it increases the influence of the citizens?
Of course, any possible solution must take into account both the financial needs that allow a political party to function as it should and the need for the citizen to be able to contribute and control the direction of the money flow. All in all, any political party should be glad happy to cast off the strangle-hold of its big donors, which in the long run only help to besmirch it.
Realistically, the starting point must be the realisation that nothing will ever completely block the tunnels connecting power with money and money with power. But one can try to reduce a party’s dependence on its big bankers by empowering the citizen and empowering the party at the same time. Honesty, like all other virtues, is a sensitive plant and needs to be watered if it is to survive.
One radical idea that has been proposed is for every citizen to be given a card. Each card contains a set sum of money – the same amount for each citizen – that can be used exclusively to fund parties and candidates in election campaigns. In addition to the political incentive for parties and candidates to disavow private donations, there would be a financial incentive, as card funding would be set sufficiently high to compete with other sources of funding. Since political expenses in Malta are nowhere near what is needed in the UK and the USA, the card need not carry a significantly large sum. All that is required is to divide the global sum needed by the local parties by the number of voters. I think it would be very worthwhile for any party to try and tap that financial well. Of course, candidates accepting the card should be barred from receiving private donations, at least above a certain low level.
There would, of course, be a case to argue against giving out this money to the elector. But with politics both in the EU and worldwide in some disrepute, and with a local electorate that has had to face so many contested tenders and Mepa decisions, removing one of the principal sources of perceived corruption in politics would enhance the influence of citizens over their representatives. This should make it a price worth paying.
Of course, there would need to be additional rules governing how the money is spent and, as with any system, it would need to be adapted as unforeseen problems arise. But such a proposal has great potential to expand social control over the formal and informal institutions of democratic life and increase citizen participation.
The key thing is that a well-designed system of public financing of this sort would reduce the need for private money to support the political process. This would be a fairer way of financing political parties, as it would reflect the voters’ opinions. It would thus increase political equality and the efficacy of the citizens: the state provides the funds, but the citizens determine the allocation.
Pie in the sky? Well, that really depends on how much the electorate wants to assert itself. Discussion is encouraged.