Corrupt practice provisions in the law may be considered by some as arcane but the spirit is certainly most clear: ‘buying’ votes, in the wider sense of the word, is considered a serious offence.
Along the years, the major political parties devised clever and not-so-ingenious ways to go round such provisions and neither the Electoral Commission, nor the attorney general or the police did anything about it. That might, hopefully, be about to change.
When, just a few weeks before the last election, 380,000 people benefited from €70 million in cash cheques and tax refunds, Finance Minister Clyde Caruana shrugged off accusations of it being a vote-buying exercise.
The police saw nothing wrong either. “The police do not consider the issuing of cheques by the government as a corrupt practice in terms of Chapter 102 and Chapter 354 of the Laws of Malta,” a spokesman had declared. The spokesman did not say why or whether the advice of the attorney general had been sought. That would have been helpful, for the law does lay down that no prosecution for a corrupt practice can happen without the blessing of the AG.
Whether the Electoral Commission looked into the matter remains unknown. Since, as expected, the Nationalist Party did complain publicly, one would have thought that its delegates within the commission would, at the least, have raised the issue. Did they, and if they did, what was the outcome?
The declaration made by the OSCE’s office for democratic institutions and human rights (ODIHR) makes it imperative that a thorough evaluation exercise is set in motion right away.
It observed that the distribution of tax refund and stimulus cheques, accompanied by a personalised letter signed by the prime minister and the minister of finance, both contesting the election, “could blur the line between party and state and do not conform to international standards and good practice”.
Though it was correct for the government to assist the public amid worrying inflation, we’ve always maintained that the timing of the cheques was ultimately an expensive vote-buying exercise.
Its international experts who monitored the election on the ground, found that, on an organisational level, it was organised efficiently and professionally, and stakeholders expressed confidence in most stages of the process. They noted transparency was diminished by limited access to electoral commission activities, lack of regulations allowing for election observation and scant oversight of and access to information on party and campaign financing.
The report also highlighted PBS’s lack of independence from the government. Nothing new there.
In its report, ODIHR listed a number of recommendations, including giving all stakeholders access to Electoral Commission meetings and publishing the minutes as well as reviewing the legal framework to enhance oversight.
As if to note that it is not very hopeful things will change, it pointed out that most of its previous recommendations to enhance transparency and improve disclosure remain unaddressed.
Elections are an essential ingredient of any democracy, and no stone should be left unturned to ensure any shortcomings flagged are addressed.
The parties represented in parliament are unlikely to want to make things more difficult for them. The Electoral Commission, on the other hand, seems to lack the required legal muscle, though, of course, nothing holds it from making recommendations itself.
Still, there surely must be individuals within both parties, even in parliament, willing to stand up and be counted, especially on such a sensitive ingredient in the country’s democratic process.
There surely must be individuals within both parties, even in parliament, willing to stand up and be counted, especially on such a sensitive ingredient in the country’s democratic process
If a private member’s motion based on the OSCE’s proposals is presented, the government and the opposition may find it difficult to be seen as opposing such a democratic move.