|
It was refreshing to hear Lawrence Gonzi say he intended to discuss the reform of the electoral system and party financing with the Opposition.
 It has become more than evident that the current electoral system risks leaving a significant number of persons unrepresented in Parliament. The finances of the parties have for far too long been clouded in suspicion and mistrust. If reform is achieved on both these issues it will give substance to the Prime Minister’s political mantra of wanting to do politics differently. Such reforms, if carried out, will certainly shake the political system as practiced to date and serve as a quality upgrade to our democracy.
The electoral system is in dire need of reform, for although based on the proportional representation system, it leaves open the possibility of many a vote not being represented and possibly lost. The crux of the problem is that for a person to be elected in our system, he or she, needs to acquire a quota exclusively from a particular district. This has traditionally proved to be a difficult numerical threshold for any candidate not belonging to one of the two large political parties. As a consequence the two-party system became further entrenched. In the early nineties the Nationalist Party had suggested a fairer system whereby any party reaching a national threshold, say of five per cent, would be eligible to elect to Parliament a number of candidates irrespective of the votes obtained in the individual districts.
This reform if implemented will further Europeanise our country. Most European elections are subject to proportional representation since it is widely accepted to be the fairest way of electing representatives to parliament. Our system requires more than simple fine-tuning. In the nineties, the Gonzi Commission, entrusted to come up with suggestions for electoral reform, had gone a long way to establish the necessary criteria for change. Eventually, nothing came off that tri-partite effort. Kick-starting the dialogue between the three political parties with a clear deadline for implementation would signify a solid step in the right direction, which once concluded will enhance the democratic credentials of our country.
Party financing is another area equally in need of reform. To date, no political party has ever published the names of the persons who donate money. Their accounts are totally absent from any donor’s names. The whole exercise is clouded in top secrecy with names only open to a handful of persons, three at most, in the top most echelons of the party. This system is totally legal in Malta, while outside our shores it has landed people in jail. What is certain is that the system leads to suspicion among ordinary citizens who have reason to suspect that at times donations are made in return for political favours. Whatever the reason, the time has come for donors’ names to be revealed. This too would enhance our democracy.
A further reason for transparency in this field is related to the big commercial interests that both parties have. Secretary generals are concentrating less on policy and policy matters and more and more on the running of their party propaganda media machines, which are proving financially unsustainable. The very idea of these propaganda machines being subsidised by anonymous donations is in itself a danger to democracy. This is a matter for concern and no amount of denial by the parties will convince the ordinary citizen that the political parties commercial media operations are sustainable. The story running in our paper this morning on the financial state of the Labour Party media and the burden on the central administration is more than convincing evidence. A similar situation is certainly to be found on the other side of the political divide.
The Prime Minister must go ahead and introduce these necessary reforms. They would be a step in the direction of doing politics differently.
|
