|
The Labour Party seems to have turned the tables on the Nationalist Party. Labour has had a field day revealing the contents of a confidential report analysing the results of the European parliamentary elections. The publishing of the report has led to a retaliatory publication of an internal labour party report delineating Labour’s electoral strategy. This tit-for-tat strategy seems commonplace each year on the eve of local elections when traditionally the political heat is at its highest level. To the observer such antics only further confirms the way politics has hit rock bottom. Instead of being a battle of ideas, mud slinging has become the order of the day.
The publications of the report calls into question the strict security of either side. It is clear that there are leaks on both sides and much internal unease. The most noteworthy change however seems to be the leaks coming from a traditionally highly controlled and unified nationalist party. Particularly lacking in style was the television film of a prime minister showing off the confidential Labour report. Surely such antics are best left to a junior party official.
The exposure of the reports puts into doubt the wisdom of keeping the reports internal and confidential. There is little in the reports which is not already publicly known. Their publication would have enhanced the credentials of either side when they publicly acknowledge the value of publication, yet privately are all too happy to keep things under wraps.
Many people who enthusiastically voted for membership of the European Union were aspiring to live in a more open and transparent society. Europe eulogises the value of transparency as a building block in the democratic edifice. Both political parties would be well advised to follow suit by making their true accounts available and letting known the source of the donations which they collect. In a central interview in our paper this morning Dr Josie Muscat lets known that in his opinion the two political parties are in the hands of a very few number of people. The reference is clear that big party donors are influencing party policy in crucial areas.
It is time to bring these party donations out into the open. It is an open secret that big business interests are funding the two major political parties. Running their mega political organisations cannot be met simply from the collection of member’s annual fees and revenues of their commercial organisations. No one believes this and even few are prepared to take the secretary generals of both parties on their word when they say they are auto-financed. They are not and never will be.
The time has come in the name of a strengthened democracy for legislation to be enacted whereby all donations received are to be included in published party accounts and for the state to start financing up to a given established amount, the political parties. This is both acceptable and necessary in the name of our democracy. Political parties are necessary players in any democracy. Their very survival and progress will further strengthen our democracy.
The present situation is unacceptable. Major contractors and other big business exponents are funding the parties and as a result influencing and possibly dictating the policies of the parties. This claim will no doubt be denied by both parties but the evidence is all too clear. A pocketful of people, irrespective of their political allegiance, simply puts them in a politically privileged position. Colour allegiance seems to be of little concern. It is the manifestation of where blue and red meets.
Publishing of donors lists is the order of the day in most European countries. All privileged positions of the political parties should be revisited. Why are the parties excluded from the stringent data protection laws? Why are the parties given a list after the elections informing them which persons on the electoral list did not vote? Why were the parties given a broadcasting license while no more frequencies exist for private entrepreneurs? The privileged position of political parties needs to be revisited. People are far more concerned on how they are financed than on the publication of each other’s confidential documents.
|
