Tag: party financing

Categories
Politics

The Barter Parties

Slogans fight back

It’s all happening in the PAC committee. The latest politicians to come under fire from the state’s evidence provider’s revlations are Austin Gatt and Manwel Mallia. It is good that the PAC committee is digging into the evidence in relation to “corruption scandals” but we must be forgiven if we remind all and sundry that the committee is in the end made up of members of our two political parties and that the sort of corruption that is being looked into is one that deals with dealing in influence – power broking of the kind that involves the sort of thinking that goes: “I’ll think of you today and you think of me tomorrow”.

Notwithstanding pre-electoral promises, our laws might at first glance still seem to be ill-equipped to deal with this kind of corruption. A very good reason is that the laws are drafted by our political parties who tend to create glaring exceptions whenever a law has to deal with them.

Take Manwel Mallia’s defence of “professional secrecy” – a quick look at the professional secrecy act will show that the obligation of professional secrecy can be lifted in the case of such crimes as money laundering but no such exception will apply to “corrupt practices”. In other words a lawyer who is confronted with a client who is knowingly laundering dirty money is divested of his obligation of secrecy but not one who comes to know of corrupt practices. Which does not explain whether or not Mallia used such information to his party’s advantage in any case (whether or not he was a minister does not matter).

In the run up to the last election we heard many times the party apparatchiks claim that their commercial arrangements are arranged on a barter system. Obviously columns such as this one that push the “PLPN” line of thinking are often discredited as though this were some conspiracy obsession but the fact of the matter is that this “barter” system admission was a very clear and open admission that parties are used to “trading their influence”. It is institutionalised corruption.

Those of a taghnalkoll persuasion might gleefully point their fingers at Austin Gatt’s reception of the €2,000 party donation but they would not do themselves any good if they ignore that such donations occur naturally across the whole party lines. The party “barter” system cannot vanish without the parties themselves vanishing along with it. That, my friends, is the unpalatable fact about the PLPN style of politics.

We saw how the loss of government influence strongly devalued PN’s “trading” power in the barter system – turning it into a bankrupt party overnight.

We also saw how the PL pie-grabbing exercises mean that the core party structure will survive another round simply by shifting its costs (and incomes) to government resources.

In the meantime the general public will act as indignant citizens and depending on which side your bread is buttered you will snort and denounce the “hnizrijiet” committed by the other side. We said it before and will say it again… you reap what you sow… and there seems to be no light at the end of this tunnel.

Below the gallery is a selection of old posts by J’accuse dealing with this barter and corruption issue.


 

On the Infamous JS List

Return of the JS List (August 18 2010)

(Evarist Bartolo) is insinuating that huge companies in Tokyo and Copenhagen had more than a hand in the assignation of the BWSC contract (remember that hot potatoe). The name dropping is not on the scale of ENRON style scandal but by Maltese standards it is big. There is an alleged web of intertwined interests that lead to linking the tenderor and the tenderee on the energy contract. There’s more. Bartolo does not shy back from implying that KPMG auditor to many of the parties involved served as a bridge between all the parties and government. And all this to lead to where? it’s not clear Who, What, When, Why or How but the conclusion is that:

“The PN has a system of fundraising where companies win government contracts and donate money to the PN. They are all part of the PN’s JS list,” Bartolo said, referring to the so called list named after former PN treasurer Joe Stellini.

Which is one hell of a whopper. From DimechGate to JS-Gate. Only, as I have been lamenting all the while, we need more tangible proof. We need cases before the Public Services Commission. It’s not a problem that the allegations surface on a newspaper – the newspaper is only attempting to perform its duty as part of the fourth estate – but there must be a follow up using the full strength of our democratic institutions. In a way there was never a shadow of doubt that contractors in various markets benefited from their contacts with the PN and that they performed services or investments in return. We just needed someone to get talking about them as a first step to something more direct being done about it. We do not have a magistratura in Malta as they do in Italy so do not expect a flurry of avvisi di garanzia very soon.

On Party Donations

From Business as Usual (April 25 2011)

Parties ask everyone for donations

Thus spake contractor Nazzareno Vassallo while celebrating his having survived 65 years in the dog-eat-dog world of Maltese building contractors. Were we surprised? No. Of course not. Would we wonder why his “well-known Nationalist sympathies have often worked against him when bidding for a contract.” Well yes. What does that mean exactly? Why does he bother funding both parties if his sympathies can work against him? How can he get away with frankly admitting that contracts ARE awarded on the basis of political considerations? Nazzareno is not the first to have claimed the “I oil both parties” approach. Sandro Chetcuti famously claimed it was important to have a pocket for every party (thank Mercury we only have two that count in the tendering business aye) and Vince “Holier than Thou” Farrugia has swung around the world of parties with better tempo than a grandfather clock’s pendulum.

(…)

Related:

Herrera alleges “rampant nepotism in financial sector” : one wonders if he’ll still be singing the same tune once it’s his party’s turn to milk the cow.

On Party Funding

From Funding Fundamentals (5 February 2013)

Idiots – that’s you the voters – are supposed to be carefully measuring the different proofs of liaisons that each party has with big business and throwing onto their homemade scales the various calculations as to who spent how much and where the money has come. Idiots (that’s still you) will then be expected to vote for the lesser evil. That, I guess (but I’m no idiot myself), will be the one with less ties to business and less I.O.U.’s hanging around in the pockets of various contractors and other men who can practically foot a blank cheque in times of need.

You do have to be an idiot though not to see past the protestations of both parties. On the one hand you have the ridiculous nationalist party “barter” concept. You see, the PN barters with companies like MFCC and in return for the use of their tents it gives them…. erm… See I’m stuck there. What the hell could the PN be offering to barter? It’s not like air time on its debt-ridden stations is free? Allocating a million euros of air time (in exchange for a tent) would mean perforce that that air time is lost from other who might have actually paid for the service.  Cardona also presented Beppe with a court case – Europrint vs MediaLink. Now that’s sweet. MediaLink owes Europrint half a million. Where will they get that from?

Labour on the other hand also have a hunch that we are all idiots. Their campaign CANNOT have been funded by the telethons. Igloos don’t grow on  trees Chris and you can have many many volunteers with ideas that you think are great but you cannot barter ideas for material in much the same way that Borg Olivier is not bartering ideas for tents. And while we are at it enough with this bullshit about the parties publishing their accounts. First of all Labour walked out of the committee for democratic reform (Select Committee on the Strengthening of Democracy) that not only put an end to the hope of electoral reform but also to any issue on party financing.

see also Grabbing the Iced Buns

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Luxembourg’s new coat

So the election came and went. Luxembourg’s that is. It came early – some unfathomable scandal to do with phone tapping and the sorts led to the precipitating of ballot consultations – and finished quickly. For southerners like myself who are used to elections being dealt with like some enormous football match complete with hooligan behaviour on the stands, Luxembourg’s national elections was an exercise in sanitised efficiency of the most yawn-inducing kind.

The elections were held on Sunday (yesterday) which also happened to be Mantelsonndag (literally Coat Sunday). Mantelsonndag is the day in which Luxembourgers go out and buy their new winter coat – which means that all the shops have another excuse to open on Sunday. Did this interfere with the fervour of the electoral consultation? Not one bit. Those entitled to vote (it’s less of an entitlement more of an obligation here – you HAVE to vote in Luxembourg) had six hours to go to their allocated booth and pick their candidates of choice in one of four districts (North, South, Centre and East). Polls opened at 8 a.m. and were shut by two in the afternoon, which means you could only just make it for the last order in a restaurant in the city.

With many more parties contesting the elections than in our notoriously bipartisan (+1) home nation you’d expect an interesting level of tension – to say the least. Nothing. At least not outwardly so. Not even the hundreds of billboards (in wood I noticed, très environmentally friendly) with the robotic expressionless faces were subjected to the least of political vandalism. Police on the roads? Are you kidding? People just rushed to the sales in the great shopping centres and forked out some money from Europe’s highest wage packets to update their ski gear and buy the new manteaux. Silence. The four (yes, four) Fiorentina supporters at the Italian joint where we get our weekly fix of calcio probably made the most noise in the whole of Luxembourg on Sunday – and their purple was not for the Pirate Party.

By seven in the evening results started to trickle out and they all but confirmed the predictions with the ruling CSV losing three of its seats in the Luxembourg 60-member parliament and the Greens losing another. The big winners were the Democratic Party who had caused what one of the papers (wort.lu) enthusiastically described as a “wave of blue” (plus four more seats in parliament). Led by the erstwhile Mayor of Luxembour Xavier Bettel the liberal-democrat party made some substantial gains that would give them a strong hand at the negotiating table as Jean-Claude Junker will form a new coalition government – extending his party’s (and his) stay in power beyond the current 18 year record.

The socialist party and left did not make any particular gains while a very interesting development occurred with the newly formed Pirate Party which managed to garner close to 3% of the vote on the first attempt. No seats in parliament for the swashbuckling heroes of liberty but the amount of votes they obtained guarantees them state financing for their next attempt (are you watching Malta?).

Thusly, without too much of a fuss and without any excessive drama, the Grand Duchy got its new coat. The multi-party politics formula seems to work  – and work well – for this tiny nation. Not for them the mass meetings and the carcades… the only time Luxembourg gets to see those is during a World or European cup… then again there’s no Luxembourgers in those carcades – just those noisy southern guests from Portugal, Italy or Greece.

Ah Europe, Unity in Diversity.

Categories
Politics

That Speedy Legislation

So Franco has now slipped his much touted bill on the financing of political parties into parliament in the form of a Private Member’s Bill. Should we wait before unpacking the fireworks? This must definitely be the last move by the Honourable Member of Għaxaq that proves to us that his seemingly interminable duel with power is not based on anything remotely resembling a coherent plan. Worse still it shows up the greatest deficiency in Franco’s actions: the apparent lack of clearly definable targets. Coupled with the Beppe Fenech Adami revelations Franco’s period as a rising star of Maltese politics has been transformed into the dying moments of a supernova. Why?

Let me tell you why. If, as Franco has often stated, the sick state of our party system is at the core of our political inertia and of what he claims to be our failed democracy then why wait for the dying moments of this parliament to present an all important private member’s bill that hits at the heart of the matter? While he danced, tangoed and sashayed in matters such as public transport Franco never tired of reminding us of his ultimate crusade. Meanwhile he was using the PN government’s one seat weakness to constantly attract attention to his immense capabilities and ultimately to the fact that GonziPN’s web of evil was guilty of putting this man with many solutions on the backburner for too long. Here was your typical example of the nagging footballer who evidently cannot stomach being left on the (back)bench for too long.

So a crucial question must be asked of Franco. Why now? As JPO showed very well with his own Private Member’s Bill on divorce, a timely proposal could have stirred the waters earlier on and shifted the national discussion to the crux of the matter. If let’s say sometime before or after the divorce saga you opted to present this law and switch the whole party system into the limelight then surely you would have been doing your duty as a responsible representative of the interests of the demos. For some reason you did not. I know for a fact that you have been working on it for a long time – who doesn’t?  Then why?

Surely you do not expect to now switch the condition of saving the day for government to the enactment of one law drafted by one person (you may be brilliant but I’m sorry it will take more than one lawyer to finalise a proper draft)? Is that your idea? To have brought the government and two political parties to the verge of an election only to tell them at the last minute to forget it and to concentrate on enacting a law first that practically threatens to handicap them in the future? Really? Seriously?

There is one issue and aside that needs to be considered. I got the impression during the last round of EU elections that many MEP candidates were very angry at their fellow candidates (even from the same party) who, according to these disgruntled candidates, bore false witness as to the amount of electoral expenses that they dispensed. Many of the “weaker” strand of candidates – those who are not in the frontline Ministerial seats or decision making committees of parties with sufficient exposure – would be desperate for a law that (rightly) puts the competition on an equal playing field during pre-electoral battles. Your minister with his deep pockets and incumbent powers might be too much of a match for backbench politicians attempting to get their backside back onto a parliamentary seat next time round… hence the probable eagerness for stricter regulations of electoral spending.

Somehow I may be wrong but I get the hunch that a couple of elections battling it out with heavyweights like Louis Galea might have taken their toll on Franco’s ability to face another round. Hence the need to propel himself to the front come what may. (A reason among many of course). Hence the last minute bill that will probably not see the light of day before the next legislature when district battles will have been fought, lax electoral rules on financing will have been flaunted and the same, same but different voting system will have triumphed.

Franco, I heard you say that the reforms the country needs should be made in a holistic manner. I’m sorry but this bill has everything but “holistic” written all over. Such a shame, the PLPN get their way again and we’ll have to wait quite some more time before anyone seriously tackles the matter.

Thanks Franco. But no thanks.

 

Video: (top right) La Lista Laqualunque

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.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : The Beat Goes On (That's Rich)

Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain

We don’t miss a beat do we? (Bang) The firework ‘factory’ explosion shook the island of Calypso to its foundations and in the end six people lost their lives. (Oompa-oompa) In a display of insensitivity that not only beggars belief but shoots it in the head from close range with a high-calibre pistol, the festivities in the village of Xaghra celebrating Our Lady of Victories went ahead as planned. (Ka-ching) One of the reasons we were given for this victory (triumph) of insanity was that the firework factory was a private one and only a supplier of processed chemicals to the feast – besides, why fritter away more money than had already gone up in smoke?

You’d be forgiven for thinking that Xaghra is to Gharb as Selawik (Alaska, USA) is to Mararikulam (Kerala, India). (Kaboom). The beat went on nevertheless and as the week rolled by the nation heard that a whole branch of a family tree had been summarily dismembered thanks to yet another supply of jeux de feu (gioco di fuoco – the archaic Italian and French terms for firework translated to Maltese as gig-gi-fogu) going wrong.

The beat went on all right, as the mediatic revelry of reporting broke new ground with the scramble for the best amateur video of the moment of the explosion. The drama was brought home as emphatically as possible, and the bombastic seriousness with which village festas were hitherto treated suffered a momentary lapse of favour with the general public. (Incidentally, like last week, this weeks’ article comes with suggested listening – Charles Camilleri’s Malta Suite – Village Festa). That temporary moment of anger at the futile loss of lives and the toying with public safety that is so evidently part of everyday life on the island is always intriguing to follow – if only for the volatility it displays until the next earth-quaking, window-shattering, child-frightening mother of all explosions reminds us that on this rock even a “remote factory” means your backyard. (Boom)

Charleston was once the rage, uh huh

Our representatives and legislators have not missed a beat either. Messages of condolence are now as much of a part of Normality Inc. as young men playing with dangerous explosives in tank tops (known in jargon as “wife-beaters”) and flip-flops. I am quite sure that these messages of condolence now come in a pre-drafted variety complete with blanks to fill. (Ta-ta-ra-ta-ta). It sounds cynical, I know, but it looks like we have begun to think of fireworks, firework factories and the like in the same manner as the US intervention in Afghanistan. There is collateral damage, there are civilian casualties and we keep sending our young troops to the front-line – some of them never come back and die the death of “heroes” for a greater cause.

What bollocks. What bullshit. What a load of absolute crap. I’m sorry, but if the idea of young men (and women) toying with their lives (ghan-namur, boom boom) does not make your blood boil with anger then you are about as sensitive and sensible as a Xaghra Feast Committee member. (Oompa-oompa). If you fail, for just one minute, to notice that it is not just the lives of these volunteers of doom that are endangered but also those of the community in the immediate surroundings, then you must be as intellectually blind as a brainless ocelot (damp squib). I know it’s as cliché as “l-innu marc” but it’s a fact that seems to fail to penetrate the mind of even the most upright politicians.

Enter Michael Falzon (Labour MP) with his comments on a moratorium on production. Such a moratorium, the learned member tells us, would be “stupid” and “irresponsible”. The legal representative of the Malta Pyrotechnics Association (Boom, Bang, Du-dum) reasons that (a) it would only drive such production underground (one would assume that he means that this time the firework producers would be working underground instead of lying horizontally post-blast) and (b) once the moratorium is over, production would only occur more frenetically than ever thus endangering more people. (Drumroll followed by explosion of petards).

In the words of the crazed tennis player, we can only reply: “You cannot be serious!” Since when does the threat of illegal behaviour prove that strict legal measures are useless? Are we not to assume that the moratorium would be used to tighten regulations, to finally realise that the proliferation of firework factories on a tiny speck in the sea is not exactly kosher, to (hopefully) restrict it to one very tightly regulated affair manned by experts? Does Michael Falzon (and the Nationalist counterparts who probably thanked the God of explosives that he is taking the flak) realise that a moratorium is not simply a pause for breath?

bert4j_1009612

History has turned the page, u-huh

It just won’t work will it? Not the moratorium. The general idea of persuading the island of “Saints and Fireworks” that the time might have come to switch from pyrotechnics to some other, safer variety that bears in mind the constraints in terms of space and safety. I am a huge fan of son et lumière and am prepared to bet that the first village that switches to an eco-friendly, human-friendly experience of a display of lighting timed to music will provide the best example to the rest of the community. Sure – an elaborate light system to light up the jewels that are our many churches and piazzas will cost money and will develop over time, but even Our Lady would tell you of its many positive advantages if she could. To begin with, the system does not go up in smoke every year and can be built upon rather than starting from scratch.

I know, I know – this is as utopian an idea as the regulation of political party financing. That too is another area where the grim reality of the network of trading in influences is only acknowledged every now and then by the regular voter before he or she switches off and back to the partisan mentality. We saw a glimpse of recognition with the firework factory problem itself. Party MPs’ hands were tied and it was obvious to many that their reluctance to take action was directly linked to the fact that the very people engaging in the “namur” (hobby) of fireworks and explosives are the same people who fund the individual campaigns for election to Parliament. They are the same campaigns that either go undeclared or end with false oaths that they have not overstepped the spending limit.

Alternattiva Demokratika has not failed to gain political mileage from the issue by accusing the two parties of insensitivity and of forming an “alliance of death”. There goes the bombastic wartime lingo all over again (you must forgive AD for engaging in superlatives in most of their attempts to attract the unwilling attention of the blinkered populace). It may be hard to picture Lawrence and Joseph as some latter day Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il but there is a point to be made here.

The grocery store’s the supermart, uh huh

Over at J’accuse we have been pressing the alarm bells for almost six years now. Recently we have enjoyed the eminent company of Franco Debono (PN MP) and Leo Brincat (PL MP) in the call for transparency of party funding. It is a core, basic element in the functioning of a democracy – that parties are transparent about their ties and dependencies. In a damascene conversion, fellow columnist Caruana Galizia seems to have finally realised this most basic of democratic realities and penned an interesting article last Thursday about the negative side of party financing. Confoundingly, Caruana Galizia ended her article with an accusation directed primarily towards Joseph Muscat – as though he is ultimately responsible for the introduction of new legislation on funding.

Funny, I thought that the business of government was to govern and that right now the government was composed of PN MPs. Funny, when last election I urged people to vote for the third choice as a direct message to the two parties that continue to ignore basic democratic precepts of representation, I was subjected to a barrage of attacks branding me (and other J’accuse readers) as “irresponsible” for even risking the possibility of Alfred Sant governing the country. Funny, the reason for that barrage seemed to be that we can only count on PN legislators for responsible legislation. Funny, but the AD argument on the need for more transparency at the time seems to come back and haunt the very “pragmatic” naysayers of the past. The AD tune does not sound so dissonant does it? A plague on both your houses, indeed.

In actual fact, we don’t need Joseph Muscat’s Labour to implement new transparency rules. Lawrence Gonzi’s PN, elected so responsibly in order to avoid the dangers and pitfalls of that monster Sant and Labour (wasn’t that the description?) has the majority he needs to get the law into place. It’s that government born out of the partisan rules that were writ to exclude third voices as much as possible and provide the relative majority with the power to enact laws for the good of the nation. They shouldn’t miss a beat. They should simply look at valid voices like that of Franco Debono, who has been yelling loudly for the dignity of Parliament, the transparency of funding and proper democratic representation.

Boys keep chasing girls to get a kiss

But they will miss that beat. There will always be an excuse not to introduce much needed legislation that affects the representation and government of the people. The intricate power web and dealing in interests is too well spun to be dismantled so easily. This is not some big conspiracy theory about powerful men sitting in a room. It is an idea that has spread through usage and custom. An idea that patronage, sponsorship and monetary support exchanged for political favours is the way to advance in the corridors of power. An idea that favours and obligations trump democratic representation and loyalty. An idea that the bipartisan machine is fed with the money of the favoured and it feeds them back with the regulations they require.

Ideas spread faster than actions and before you know it the notion of favours, backhanders and trading in influences has pervaded our political culture at all levels and is considered as normal. That is the sad truth about this country. Firework factories too close to “civilian” buildings for comfort but we barely blink and the beat will go on as it always has. The idea settles in our minds and we think that men in flip-flops handling dangerous explosives is normal. We will barely flinch four months from now when sweet nothing happens again. And who do we have to blame? Mike Briguglio was subtle last week when he said: “You have your vote. Use it.” I prefer the words by V (in “V for Vendetta” by the Wachowski Brothers): “Well, certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look in a mirror.”

And the beat goes on, yes, the beat goes on

I type this article on the 11th of September – 9/11 for Americans. The world news is stuck on the US commemoration of events nine years ago. A bigot pastor somewhere in the US has hit the headlines for his ridiculous idea of burning a book that is holy to millions of people across the world. This has sparked reactions as far off Afghanistan and Pakistan and condemnations from the civilised world. It’s not as simple as good versus evil and there are many factors to consider (media coverage is one of them), but sometimes you do have to wonder how much more damage can be done in the name of God and his Saints.

My deepest condolences to the President and Prime Minister for their loss. It’s been a week of unhappy coincidences for fathers of politicians (David Cameron). I would also like to take this opportunity to wish a good and peaceful Eid el-Fitr to all Muslim readers.

www.akkuza.com’s beat goes on. It wasn’t Buddy Rich originally but Sonny and Cher — yes the headings were from that song… will you manage to get it out of your head?

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Zolabytes

Party financing agreement a must

Two days ago we had a Zolabyte by PN MP Franco Debono who continues his quest for the regulation of party financing. Today we bring you a voice from the other side of the house. Labour MP Leo Brincat has been involved in the issue since the Galdes Report on party financing. Here he exposes the pitfalls of the process of regulation and points out what must be solved in order to move on. Is Labour’s Leo right in lamenting that “we are already too late”? (article reproduced with the kind permission of the author).

The article by Nationalist MP Franco Debono on party financing (September 8th) made interesting reading.

The core issue and problem is that, although he seems to believe that this is an urgent matter that needs to be dealt with without any further undue delay, I was never ever convinced of his own party’s commitment to plugging the gap of this democratic deficit.

I write through experience, having had the honour to serve as the Labour Party’s nominee on the ad hoc committee chaired by the late Anthony Galdes, a former civil servant and private sector senior executive of impeccable qualities and standards, that eventually led to the so-called Galdes Report.

There are various aspects that have continued to worry me and haunt me since.

Fifteen years have passed and the Nationalist government that has been at the helm of the country for more than 13 of these years never ever made any serious effort to conclude matters on this issue or legislate on the matter. Hardly ever did it, as a party, make any formal commitment to spell out its intentions on the subject and show it is prepared to go the whole hog to ensure that agreement will be finally reached on this important issue.

On the contrary, the perception the Nationalist Party would prefer to perpetrate the status quo continues to gain ground not only in political but also in commercial and entrepreneurial circles.

There is hardly any point in my colleague Dr Debono lamenting that no significant developments have taken place since 1995 and that no concrete measures have been implemented when there was never any real agreement on the document’s findings itself… something that left the implementation process as dead as a dodo from the word go.

In the run-up to the last election, the PL had committed itself publicly to implement the recommendations of the Galdes Commission on party financing while the general feeling now seems to be that one should take that report as the basis for moving ahead, given the decade and a half that have passed since then.

If one wants proof of the PN’s lack of real commitment on party financing one should scrutinise the fine details and the differences that actually derailed the Galdes Commission.

That the three established parties agree with the principle of transparency in party financing is not enough. As the adage goes, the devil is in the detail and, if my memory serves me well, the proposals put forward by the PN during the formulation of the Galdes report had made it clear they were only after piecemeal solutions that almost defeated the whole purpose of the exercise by ensuring that the parties in question will not optimise the potential benefit of such an accord.

It is interesting to note that, at the time, the commission had been made up of the PL (through yours truly), the PN, Alternattiva Demokratika and Dolores Cristina, who was an independent member and who, to be fair, gave many positive inputs throughout the various discussions we had.

Ironically, both the AD and the only independent member (Ms Cristina) had agreed at the time with the benchmarks proposed by the PL. It was the PN that had stalled the process.

The time is already overdue for such agreement to be reached on such an issue – regardless of whether there is a functioning parliamentary select committee or not – since, by next April, this government will have been in power for three years in this legislature. With elections then fast approaching it is more likely there will be more foot dragging by the government side to reach any form of agreement.

On the other hand, I feel one should also legislate concurrently on the expenditure limits and funding of political candidates too. This, not only to ensure a proper level playing field during election campaigns but also to ensure that certain candidates who might easily find their way to the House (again or for the first time) will not have any strings attached through contributions they received.

The capping of expenditure by political candidates must also be updated and revised upwards to a more realistic level to ensure that the existing laws will not continue to be flagrantly abused of as happens regularly in every election campaign.

In an interview published in another section of the media, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando had been reported to have dropped the biggest hint to date that the government may be reconsidering its earlier opposition to the Galdes conclusions (September 26, 2007). Alas, since then, we have not seen any concrete proof of this, no matter how strongly Dr Pullicino Orlando might genuinely feel on the matter.

Now is the time for the three political parties to get real on the whole issue of political party financing.

The PL has already come forward with a 15-point plan on transparency, which many conveniently chose to either ignore, ridicule or downplay.

On the issue of party financing, people expect that, rather than having these parties disagreeing to agree, if they all believe strongly in transparency they should knock into place an agreement on party financing without further delay.

We are in my opinion already far too late.

Website: www.leobrincat.com

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog. Accompanying images selected by J’accuse.
****

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta