It never ceases to amaze me how something which is a patently bad idea and eminently unsuitable for the Maltese political scene suddenly picks up momentum and starts being bandied about as a terrific notion.
The latest example of this happening was with the issue of state funding of political parties. Although the issue has been bubbling away quietly in the political background for some time, things came to a head when a tanned Joe Saliba stepped ashore after a week or so cruising the Med with Zaren Vassallo – a prominent contractor and party donor. Saliba walked straight into a stake-out of Super One journalists who turned the spotlight onto the close links between certain contractors and the PN. No big surprises there. It’s an open secret that contractors bankroll the PN. That’s not all – they also give donations to the MLP. They’re either ideologically confused, or have too much money for their own good, or simply want to hedge their bets and curry favour with both present and future parties in government. You take your pick of the reasons for their generosity. Me, I’m going for the latter.
Well anyway, once the contractor cronies started boasting of their largesse to the press and the public started construing it as the payment for privileges, permits and preferential treatment, Joe Saliba started making strange noises about transparency and public trust. The Prime Minister picked up on this and started off with his “You show me yours and I’ll show you mine” tactic to which Labour Deputy Michael Falzon responded by saying he was ready to bare all (donation-wise that is) and oh, wouldn’t it be a good idea if the state could help out the parties financially? And on we went from there with the initial suggestion snowballing into something much bigger.
State funding, it was said, would put a stop to the sleaze. The parties would not be dependent upon big private donors and would no longer be indebted to them. The taxpayer would be saving money as public tenders would no longer be awarded to the government’s donors but to the most efficient and more economical bidder. State funding would allow political parties to concentrate on policy formulation rather than on fund-raising and ancillary activities. To all of which I say: “dream on”.
Apart from the fact that I recoil in dismay at the prospect of my taxes being spent on Indifest-type extravaganzas or Phil Noble-style consultancies, my greatest objection to state funding stems from one simple consideration – it does not work. The experience of other countries shows that state funding does not put a stop to corruption or bribery as politicians still resort to bung-taking to bolster their finances.
Take a look at our closest neighbour – Italy. Before the early 90s, Italy had a generous state funding system in place. Yet, this did not prevent bribery from taking place on a massive scale. The political parties which benefited from public funds still took kickbacks for contracts of works. In some cases, the bribery system was so precise that kickbacks were subject to an exact mathematical division. Those arising from works on the Milanese underground, for example, were awarded in the following manner: 36% to the Socialist party, 18.5% to the Christian Democrats and smaller percentages to minor parties. A disgruntled contractor was instrumental in bringing the whole “tangenti” system to light when he complained about the systemic extortion whereby 10% of the value of any contract awarded in Milan had to be paid back to the people awarding the contracts, be they for laundry, rubbish collection, funeral services or any types of works. The politicians were not satisfied with the public funds they were receiving and still took bungs, with the result that the taxpayer was paying twice over.
The state funding system in Germany did not serve as a bar for Helmut Kohl’s acceptance of cash-stuffed envelopes from big business interests. In France, where the political parties are awash with state funds, bribery and corruption scandals have proliferated. What are the odds that the same thing will not happen here? We always think we’re so blessedly unique, but we’re not. Rather than hopping on this bandwagon we should study the experience of other countries with state funding carefully before launching another costly and useless experiment.

A friend suggested that the introduction of state funding would level the playing field for smaller parties with minimal financial resources. Being assured of a reliable source of income, even though much smaller than that funnelled to the major parties, would help smaller outfits no end.
I’m afraid that this is more wishful thinking. I’m no prophet but I’ll warrant that parties which are already represented in parliament will not be too happy with others getting a look-in and will cooperate to ensure that smaller movements don’t receive any funds. The big ‘uns will form a cartel to see that the lion’s share of state funds continue being allocated to them. Something of the sort happened in Belgium when the Flemish nationalist party, Vlaams Blok started making electoral inroads. Soon after, the cartel parties questioned its right to receive public funding, arguing that a party that threatened the unity of the Belgian state forfeited its right to that state’s money. As nearly all forms of private donations had already been banned in Belgium, turning off its state funds would have left Vlaams Blok practically bankrupt and squeezed out off the scene.
Eventually Vlaams Blok was declared to be a racist outfit and closed down. Still, the incident is illustrative of the way that parties form cartels to push newcomers who threaten the status quo, out in the cold.

There’s another problem with this state funding hoo-ha. How will the parties account for the way public funds are spent? Can they splash out on anything at all? Snappy ties for the Prime Minister? Heaps of glossy brochures extolling his virtues and telling us to vote for him again? A better sound system for One TV? More corny programmes on One TV? What if we think it’s a blasted waste of money and want a refund?
Don’t think that any of the examples I’ve listed above are too outrageous. British taxpayers were appalled to find out that the Labour Party had paid GBP7,700 in fees to Cherie Blair’s hairstylist for his services for a month. I have nightmares of something similar happening here. Imagine – the taxpayer footing the bill for George Pullicino’s de-stressing spa treatment, Silvio Parnis’s gel, specially reinforced braces for Austin Gatt to twang on while he’s posing for yet another e-government brochure… None of which are welcome prospects. If the state funding idea isn’t laid to rest fast, these are just some of the things we’ll be stumping up for soon.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt