Guaranteeing democracy

Kurt Sansone took the lid off the General Elections Act 1991 and made some serious allegations.

It was shown that Maltese legislation regulating election expenditure is riddled with loopholes and that no effective control is exercised over electoral expenses.

The law stipulates that an agent for a candidate can spend up to Lm600, but all candidates contesting on the same party ticket can spend up to a maximum of Lm3,000 per district.

With 13 districts, this means that a political party could only spend a total of Lm39,000 during an electoral campaign. A single billboard on display for a month would cost Lm600 or so and a full colour advert in a leading paper costs as much for a single issue. Of course, candidates incur other expenses during each campaign on leaflets, coffee parties, transport and so on.

Candidates make short shrift of the law. Much of their campaign is financed by "friends" and the sky is the limit. The power of faceless money interests can thus exploit its potential to influence both party policies as well as the electorate.

In these circumstances, there is no such thing as a level electoral playing field which is the main objective of the electoral law.

This situation defrauds democracy. It is by no means a solid foundation on which to build a democratic framework.

The political criteria for accession to the EU to be met by candidates, as laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993, stipulate that candidate countries must have achieved "stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy and the rule of law".

When we look at the mirror, are we satisfied that the democratic cosmetics on the Maltese statute book do us proud?

Does Malta fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria, and has this aspect been considered in the process of transposition of Maltese legislation to conform with these criteria?

From the EU standpoint, should the Copenhagen criteria not also have a bearing on the rules of the game governing the current referendum campaign as well, when it comes to campaign expenses?

Embarrassing as it may be for certain elements who may have profited from the status quo, the time has come to stir the stagnant waters of Malta's legal environment and reinvigorate our democratic set-up.

We pay lip-service to electoral fair-play, about which there are also entrenched positions in the Maltese Constitution (as there are, also, on Malta's neutral status).

From time to time, situations arise when the entrenched positions become a subject of controversy. Two of them relate to the qualification of voters and the presence of armed foreign warships in Maltese waters respectively.

Rather than solving these problems by consensus, which would open the way forward for constitutional amendments, or by applying to the courts for a definitive interpretation of the Constitution where differences arise, the government relies on its parliamentary majority to do what it likes and plays the game according to its whims.

It does so at its peril and the only available democratic opportunity to remedy matters to the satisfaction of the electorate is at a general election.

This is not the way to run a tribe. Viable democracies need the sustenance of updated legislation, coupled with constitutional elasticity to cope with the reasonable demands of progress.

Only recently we had the case of Arnold Cassola, general secretary of the European Federation of Green Parties and spokesman on EU affairs for Alternattiva Demokratika.

It has been held that Dr Cassola does not qualify as a voter in terms of the Constitution because he has not been resident in the island "for at least six months in the 18 months before the publication of the last electoral register".

Whatever the circumstances, this is what the law says. I sympathise with Dr Cassola but it seems to me too much to expect for the law to be suspended, or for the Constitution to be treated like a karta tà l-incova simply because a referendum is in the offing.

There was plenty of time to deal with this general issue by due process - and the due process should have consisted of an attempt to amend the constitution by consensus in such a way as to embrace all situations calling for updating the electoral process.

Crying over spilt milk at this stage may impress people in far-away places but is not likely to frighten the horses in the law courts.

Dr Cassola would most probably have been much better advised if he raised his case at the proper EU quarters, early in the negotiating stages, when the issue of stability of institutions guaranteeing Maltese democracy and the rule of law were being reviewed.

He might have somehow rocked the boat if he did. But it would have all been for the democratic cause and in his legitimate personal interest.

On the other hand, I may be wrong in my assessment. Dr Cassola may know a lot more than I do about how far runs the writ of Brussels when it comes to persuade its friends to implement these criteria.