State funds for political parties

In light of the provisions of our current law on the financing of political parties, Prime Minister Robert Abela and Opposition leader Alex Borg clashed over a particular aspect when they first met after the latter was elected PN leader. 

While Borg called for the state financing of political parties, Abela disagreed outright. 

Until not long ago, the complete lack of rules meant that anything was permitted. As political parties clearly could not survive merely with the funds raised through the collection of membership fees and as no form of public funding was provided, each party had to find its own expedients. 

The state took no interest in such matters, leaving each party entirely free to raise the funds necessary for its functioning here and there, without being too scrupulous about the methods employed. Each party had to raise funds at all costs, and the richest were the strongest. 

The outcome was widespread reliance on dubious, undercover financing practices. 

Since there were no rules and therefore no limits on either income or expenditure, parties competed with one another in a frantic race to find contributors, and the entities contacted took advantage of the position of strength in which they then found themselves to provide funds, with strings attached, to those parties that would get their message across and safeguard their interests. 

Many have interpreted Borg’s call as a veiled opportunity to somehow get the state to finance the PN’s current huge debt of around €50 million. 

Yet, can an amended law to provide for state financing of political parties truly arrive at that stage, or can there be enough safeguards and mechanisms to prevent such a syphoning of state funds? 

I contend that there can be a satisfactory way around this needless controversy that is hijacking any possibility of having a national discussion and public consultation. 

Interest in the issue of political party funding is a relatively recent phenomenon. Although this is understandable in the case of countries which began their transition to democracy only a short time ago, it is more surprising in those which have long had democratic systems of government, Malta being one of them, and already have considerable experience of political pluralism, electoral contests and parliamentary election campaigns. 

Political parties are a fundamental element of the democratic systems of states and are an essential tool of expression of the political will of citizens. However, the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns should be subject to standards to prevent and fight corruption. 

Corruption represents such a serious threat to the rule of law, democracy, human rights, equity and social justice that it hinders economic development, endangers the stability of democratic institutions and undermines the moral foundations of society. 

The state and its citizens are both entitled to support political parties, and, therefore, raising public awareness on the issues of prevention and fighting against corruption in the field of funding of political parties is essential to the good functioning of our democratic institutions. 

A growing public perception is concerned with problems relating to the illicit financing of our mainstream political parties. 

To ensure the equality of opportunities for the different political forces, proper legislation can envisage public financing also extending to political bodies representing a significant section of the electoral body and presenting candidates for election. The level of financing could be fixed by the legislator periodically, according to objective criteria. 

The financing of political parties through public funds should be on the condition that the accounts of political parties shall be subject to control by specific public organs such as the National Audit Office (NAO). The state must be committed to promoting a policy of financial transparency of political parties that benefit from public financing. 

The state should participate in campaign expenses through funding equal to a certain percentage of a ceiling, appropriate to the situation in the country and fixed in proportion to the number of voters concerned. This contribution may, however, be refused to parties that do not reach a certain threshold of votes. 

Certain limitations may also be envisaged. These limitations may notably include a prohibition on contributions from enterprises engaged in industrial or commercial activities, as well as from religious organisations. 

Any irregularity in the financing of a political party could entail sanctions proportionate to the severity of the offence, which may consist of the loss of all or part of public financing for the following year. Any irregularity in the financing of an electoral campaign could further entail, for the party or candidate at fault, sanctions proportionate to the severity of the offence that may consist of the loss or the total or partial reimbursement of the public contribution, the payment of a fine or another financial sanction or the annulment of the election. 

Providing a public source of funds would have the aim of placing parties and their candidates on a more equal footing. 

It is imperative to meet the requirements inherent in the inevitable cost of democracy. If the democratic process is to function well, it is necessary both to limit, as far as possible, and reduce expenditure by political parties and at the same time to safeguard the principle of equality between parties, which often appears to be jeopardised in favour of mainstream parties, which, because they obtain the highest scores and the largest number of seats, are allocated considerable public subsidies.