As the country nears the half-way mark of the general election campaign, it stands to reason that the last thing either of the two main political parties would like to enter into is a debate over their campaign spending.
But perhaps they should. After all, a recent survey by Eurobarometer, the EU’s statistical arm, found that half of Maltese respondents felt that links between business and politicians were too close for comfort, while 66 per cent of Maltese felt that transparency was lacking when it came to party financing.
When it comes to electoral reform, the most pressing issue is not, although also important, the introduction of a rolling register, which has been done, or the introduction of the not-so-modern concept of voting overseas at embassies.
The most important electoral reform the country faces is that of party and campaign financing, an issue that the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) has long been calling on Malta to make good on for close to a decade now.
And although both of the country’s main political parties, most of the time, make the right noises when it comes to this fundamental democratic reform, it is abundantly clear that neither party holds the political will to really do anything about it.
Against this backdrop, Malta’s two predominant political parties – the Nationalist and Labour parties – have refused to answer a set of questions from this newspaper about how their campaigns are being financed.
The story was reported in last Sunday’s issue, and issue was all the more pertinent when considering the Nationalist Party’s accusation that the Labour Party’s campaign was being financed by someone with a vested interest in the party’s energy generation proposal, and that the opposition party had spent some €1 million in the first week of the campaign. In fact, just this week, a Nationalist Party email shot to the effect that it is being heavily outspent by the Labour Party, obviously without providing any facts of figures to substantiate the claim.
Last week, at least the Labour Party at least had the decency to have acknowledged our questions and to have sent an albeit diplomatic reply, to the effect that the Labour Party is the only party that publishes its accounts and that it is committed to introducing a ‘serious’ party financing law.
The Nationalist Party, however, did not even bother to acknowledge receipt of our questions, let alone answer them, despite having been given 10 days and a number of reminders to fashion a reply.
In fact, it was only Malta’s third party, Alternattiva Demokratika, which deemed the subject matter important enough to answer, making it, in this respect, the most transparent of the three.
At the very least, any political party claiming to be in favour of transparency in party financing and against corruption, for that is what the whole issue boils down to, should have no problem in answering two of our nine questions: the number of donations exceeding €1,000 and the number of donations exceeding €5,000.
The third question, which concerns the total amount of donations received, was admittedly more intrusive – and for all we know, the information may be difficult to compile – although in the interest of transparency, such information should undoubtedly also be made public.
Other questions dealt with the parties’ beliefs when it comes to party financing, and the way forward they envisage in this respect.
But one thing is for certain, matters in this area undoubtedly need a good dose of transparency. Malta, according to GRECO, is among the worst offenders in this respect, and it has the longest way to go toward rectifying the situation as well.
Malta is, in fact, one of just three Council of Europe member states – the others being Andorra and Denmark – out of a total of 46 members, that allow anonymous party and campaign financing.
Moreover, Malta does not require political parties or organisations affiliated to political parties to keep proper books and accounts, to specify all donations received in these accounts, or to make the accounts public – matters deemed essential for ensuring the transparency of party and election campaign financing.
Malta does, however, provide that returns submitted by election candidates can be made public upon request. And rest assured that once this campaign reaches its endgame, this newspaper will be requesting that information.
According to GRECO, countries need to provide specific rules to avoid conflicts of interests; ensure transparency of donations and avoid secret donations; avoid prejudice to the activities of political parties; and to ensure the independence of political parties.
GRECO has called on its members states to ensure that structures be put in place where they are absent, and in Malta they are completely absent, to guarantee transparency in political party and election financing by stamping out anonymous donations; introducing, through legislation, transparency when it came to the sources of party funding such as donations in kind, party membership fees and loans or sponsorships; publishing related financial information in an easily accessible and timely way; creating truly independent supervisory bodies to oversee such financing; and developing sanctions against corrupt practices that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive – all requirements that Malta does not meet as matters currently stand.
Perhaps by the time the next general elections role around Malta may have joined the leagues of democratic states that have placed enough importance on democracy to at long last craft laws governing party and campaign financing but, at this rate, we are, unfortunately, doubtful.