The question of party financing through taxpayers’ money emerged like a lightning bolt soon after the PN’s general secretary Joe Saliba was “caught” on a yachting holiday with Zaren Vassallo, a leading contractor and a Nationalist donor.
Although in reality there is nothing wrong with a party general secretary choosing with whom to spend his summer holiday, the alarm was raised because Zaren Vassallo also happens to be the contractor building the Nationalist Party headquarters, and his companies have secured hefty public contracts in the past.
In Malta, people automatically become suspicious because everyone knows each other and in an attempt to remove such doubts from the public mind, the Prime Minister came out with the idea that political parties could be financed directly from public coffers. It has also been reported that the Prime Minister has tabled the idea before Cabinet. As expected, the MLP is not averse to public financing, knowing for sure that as things stand, contractors donate heftier sums to the PN and are prepared to give only nominal amounts to the rival party, possibly to keep its mouth shut.
Those who have expressed their opposition to the public financing of political parties base their argument on the premise that there are other social groupings which do not receive any assistance from the state. Others are adamant not to see their taxes go directly to political parties, calling this “political robbery”.
I will not join this chorus because I hate seeing politicians grovelling at the mercy of building contractors. We have had plenty of instances when the mighty contractors have sliced for themselves portions of public land, built it up without a permit and instead of bulldozing the building down, the government (through MEPA), only asked politely the payment of a relatively small sum of money by way of “retribution” to the stealing of public land. We have assisted to numerous cases where contractors offer a bid, only to double or triple it at the end of the contract.
The moot point is whether the public is paying more out of its taxes under the present system of “contractor-party-finance” or whether it will pay more if parties are financed by the state. Before I form an opinion I would like to see what plans are in store first. If the parties are totally financed by the state in reasonable quantities, I would not find a strong objection considering the fact that in the final analysis, we are paying more under the present system of party obligation to contractors.
I want to see strong governments safeguarding public money through equitable contract allocation and implementation at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. The various projects embarked upon in the last 20 years by the Nationalist government were heavily off the original mark with huge millions of liri going down the drain. Are these amounts larger or smaller than the proposed public handouts to political parties?
The Nationalist Party in government has found it easier to score political goals and riding on government propaganda under the guise of “project” inauguration. The massive Mater Dei propaganda campaign, engineered in a way to give credit to the Nationalist Party, was paid out of public funds. The same occurred during the Commonwealth meeting in November 2005, and when Malta joined the European Union two years earlier. We have already been warned that the Euro entry would be greeted with champagne on New Year’s Eve. The Government (or taxpayer?) would provide the centre stage, the entertainment and other accessories to a fine evening which would only serve to mesmerise the public with a feel-good factor a few months away from the general election. Are we not subsidising the party in government to have an edge on the Opposition party and thereby distorting the real meaning of a democratic race between two or more equals? And what about Presidential visits, high ranking personalities coming to visit us from abroad hailing the successes of the party in government… on the eve of a General Election?
Every activity of this sort comes with a price-tag attached, paid out of public funds. So would it be wiser to finance directly political parties rather than seeing them the modern slaves of contractors? What about the democratic imbalance between the two major political parties? It is no secret that the Nationalist Party garners more support from contractors than the MLP.
Public finance of political parties should not exclude their capacity to raise funds themselves but donations should be kept small and their source published. From experience I can say that the MLP does not collect huge amounts from a few individuals and this secures a better guarantee that future government money would be efficiently spent with no obligations towards a few party contributors.
As the system stands, the MLP is at a great disadvantage. I am not against financing political parties but I would prefer seeing more details before forming a definite opinion. Before aborting the idea, it would be wise if we did our homework and calculated what we are paying now through government propaganda and contract “amendments” and “additions”, which run into millions of liri and have become the order of the day.