Tag: donations

Categories
Mediawatch

Terms they employ

terms_akkuza

Everybody loves the Gaffarenas. Or so it seems. They have been “in bed” with both of the main parties in one way or another. They have kept up their part of the general unspoken deal of the Maltese version of the mafia “pizzo” by making sure that donations (of different proportions) go to the two parties. Whenever they have had business in court they made sure to make use of the services of lawyers on both sides of the great divide in Liliput – the Independent is currently running a story that not only was Beppe Fenech Adami once a lawyer to the Gaffarena family but so were PL MP Joseph Sammut and PL president Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi. It’s not so much a tirade of mud as it is a tirade of non sequiturs.

This blog has gone on record as saying that the simple matter of begging for and receiving donations from the commercial sector (no matter the amount) is a dangerous game that is played by all parties – whether or not the IOU is eventually cashed later on. Unfortunately this risks to be misinterpreted thanks to the malady of “par condicio” that all parties are guilty of playing the game in the same manner. It is not the case. At all. First of all the political game requires that the message is garbled and confused by throwing together the matter of donations and legal services given to the Gaffarenas as though it was all part of the same boat.

MaltaToday, just before a visit to their offices by Joseph Muscat, had gone ballistic about links between former PN secretary General Joe Saliba and some dealings of the Gaffarena family. Again, no surprises here – even where Saliba is concerned. International politicians like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton retire to the lecture circuit that pays millions in return. Politicians like Saliba and, Austin Gatt (he comes to mind) “retire” to businesses run by former sponsors of their parties. Where does it all put us?

The PN is right to insist that the Labour government is much more eager to allow Gaffarena to cash in on his “investments” with the PL. The proof that we have before us points strongly in that direction. Gaffarena’s petrol stations and property dealings happened under a very faulty and accommodating Labour watch. Labour’s attempt at deviating the issue onto Beppe Fenech Adami’s involvement with Gaffarena as a lawyer is pathetic to say the least. As was the botched attempt to nail Busuttil with some kind of pre-electoral deal with the same. There is no doubt that in this particular circumstance Labour’s clumsy way of playing the political power game is much more at fault than the PN’s.

Is it a defence for the PN that in its time in power it maintained a level of “decency” when dealing with the how and when to accommodate its own sponsors? Not really. The end result is the same – especially in the construction and planning business. PL took up the baton where the PN left it. Only to shed completely any mask that feigned democratic accountability and to plunge directly into undemocratic mayhem. This “mess in denial” is the same one that is reforming MEPA to blatantly accomodate the greed of the construction industry. It is the same one that explodes smoke bombs of supposed scandals in the PN past while obstinately steamrolling over public opinion in matters such as the Zonqor development. As for the latter scandal, for scandal it is, the noise is still so loud about the development in Zonqor that little or nothing more has been said about the actual “university” itself. A real social movement would not only oppose the development in Zonqor per se but would also oppose a Sadeen University of fake anywhere. Yes, anywhere.

The Gaffarena family is now a hot potato in the PLPN battles. It is becoming the scapegoat for all the deals and trading that happened in our corner of the world. Do not get me wrong. Deals with lobbyists, musical chairs in “positions of trust”, preferred traders and the like are a trademark of the democratic system as it happens in the western world. The danger in Malta is that the PL seems to be intent not only to play the game at its most blatantly obvious but also to dismantle completely the system of checks and balances that every now and then acted as  a brake.

Pointing fingers at lawyers for the having offered their services in the past (so long as such services are legit) is just not on. Muscat and his clan are quite adept at surfing the wave of public ignorance. They have little care about the “collateral damage” that could be done in the process so long as the ends justifies the means in the short run. In this, as in many other matters, they are proving to be short sighted and risk being hoist by their own petard in the future.

Categories
Politics

Donations and Donations

donations_akkuza

Donations to political parties were already a hot topic during the last election campaign. We all remember the explanations given by Paul Borg Olivier regarding what amounted to the practice of “trading and barter” between the PN and commercial “supporters” of the party. Doubts were also raised about the Labour party’s mysterious meetings with persons of substantial economic weight that seemed to explain the expensive electoral campaign afforded by Muscat and the Taghna Lkoll gang. During an electoral campaign it all boils down to more fodder for one or the other party but ultimately little is ever done about the links between parties and their economic “sponsors”. As for the unprofessionally drafted party financing law, don’t hold your breath if you are expecting it to change anything. It has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese – and little wonder at that for it is drafted and “fine tuned” by the very parties that are supposed to be kept in check.

More recently we have the Gaffarena scandals with Marco (of said Gaffarena descent) making much fuss about the fact that he donated monies to both parties. We’ve been there before. Sandro Chetcuti, of Malta Developers’ Association fame, also went on record in the press as to how much of his money went to line either of the main party’s pockets because “it was important to be in their good books”. There is no doubt that the structure of our political fabric is such that depends equally on having a well-oiled party funding machine as part of the greater process of achieving the Holy Grail of a place in power. The not too finely spun network of quid pro quos that follows logically from such a system of interdependence is one that belies the recent statement that “it’s not whether you took a donation that counts but whether you do anything in return”.

Such a statement alas is equivalent to ignoring the bare truth that lies before all to see. The only reason that such donations are given (whether on or off record) is to curry favour with the recipient party. In the words of the man in the street… “they owe them one”. Sometimes they owe them much more than one. The structure of our political system cannot ignore this simple state of affairs. It is useless to assume a holier than thou attitude when the general trend is to enable the giving of donations anyway. Whether you allow the donor to cash back his cheque in the future is, frankly speaking, rather irrelevant.

I for one do not doubt (and am rather glad) that the PN did not cave in to Gaffarena’s requests with regards to his Qormi petrol station but the fact of the matter remains that Gaffarena was at some point a registered or unregistered donor of the PN to the tune of a thousand or so euros. Why were such donations accepted? Because the sub-literate Gaffarena was eager to support the party ideals inspired by Don Luigi Sturzo, Rafael Caldera and Serracino Inglott? Pull the other one. The smallest donation of 1€ to the largest donation lining a party HQ in marble and snazzy furniture is all there for a purpose. It is an IOU that lies heavily on a political party’s conscience.

Labour have proven to be masters in the IOU banking service. They have taken the informal word of donations exchanged for favours and have brazenly exercised it out in the open without any ounce of shame (when they are not profiting from the expropriation and use of public land such as Australia Hall). Far from the meritocratic and transparent government the Labour movement has signified the consolidation of the hitherto subtle network of exchanges between businessmen, lobbies and politicians. Cui bono? That is the question (sadly, the only question) that can be asked of practically every measure and move under the present government. Who benefits? Laws can be altered hastily and even framework legislation (such as that for planning and environent) radically reformed simply to be able to allow donors and supporters to cash cheques. This is no system of donations to support a roadmap… it is a direct consequence of cosi fan tutti reaching its final climax of corrupt obscenity. With practically no one batting an eyelid.

Creating spurious distinctions on whether the donation was “cashed” directly by some counter-move does not help in uncovering the deep-set malaise that both underpins and (ironically enough) undermines our political system. Accepting donations from the Gaffarenas and Chetcutis of this world is wrong in any case. It is wrong because such donations have ALWAYS created an expectation for what the donor seems to perceive as a legitimate return. The fact that our political parties need to millions of euros in order to exist is neither here nor there nor an excuse for this kind of enabling of a sick network.

A new style of politics is one that clearly creates a huge distance between profiteering businessmen and the political parties. It is one that reneges on developing money hungry political parties and concentrates on a system where the boundary lines between policy making and benficiaries of such policy are clear. We are very far from that ever happening. Frankly it might be too late.

Categories
Politics

€672,037 – Finance this?

It’s been a great day for charity. The combined powers of PLPN have raised over half a million euros to cover the expenses of their ailing and needy houses. Who needs a law on party financing when the nation can practically give €1.50 per capita to the most needy among us? Of course that is how the PLPN fund their mini-chains of shame – also known as Archaic Party Propaganda Machines for the 21st Century. The OneTV and Net enterprises would have long shut down elsewhere but still need the emergency donations in this country of ours. For crying out loud. It’s Christmas time. We’ve repeated it every year – there is nothing more that betrays the crass insensitivity of the two political parties than this facetious appeal for funds year in year out. Thank God Joseph Muscat forwent €120,000 of honoraria ara…. I read somewhere that Dr Gonzi described the PN house as everybody’s home… a donation to PN would be like helping build one’s home. How we fail to see this as a reason to sit down and weep is beyond me.