The political parties have just suffered a double whammy in the way they exploit the airwaves for propaganda purposes, whether in government or in opposition.

The constitutional court has ruled that the impartiality proviso in the constitution applies to all broadcasting services, private or public.

The constitution is very clear: “It shall be the function of the Broadcasting Authority to ensure that, so far as possible, in such sound and television broadcasting services as may be provided in Malta, due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy…”

The parties, however, decided otherwise, arguing their stations balance each other out. They based their argument on a clause in the Broadcasting Act, which says that the regulator can “consider the general output of programmes provided by the various broadcasting licensees and contractors together as a whole”.

The recent decision by the constitutional court throws that argument out of the window. The three judges hearing the case were unequivocal: it is wrong to argue that once every political party can have a broadcasting station then the impartiality demanded by the constitution is no longer applicable.

This decision was probably what motivated the usually submissive Broadcasting Authority to decide, a month later, that Labour’s ONE News should carry a statement issued by ADPD, the green party, on the hospitals’ privatisation controversy. Incidentally, even in its decision (in Maltese), the regulator opted to use the word ‘asks’ rather than ‘orders’ the statement to be carried.

Indeed, the submissive attitude adopted by the supposed broadcasting watchdog and its inability or unwillingness to be proactive most of the time can be blamed for many of the ills that existed and continue to prevail.

During the Mintoff administration, the public broadcaster was allowed to become ‘his master’s voice’ and even to decide not to mention the leader of the opposition by name. That state of affairs led the Nationalist Party to introduce pluralism in broadcasting soon after being returned to power in 1987. Many, however, consider it a grave mistake that the new government offered broadcasting licences to the two main political parties and the Church. What happened since vindicates that fear, even if it mainly boils down to ineffective regulation.

The constitutional court judgment and the Broadcasting Authority’s latest decision may – just may – lead to changes in laws and regulations governing TV and radio stations. Since it is unlikely the parties will do anything themselves, the responsibility falls on other smaller political parties and civil society to keep pushing for change.

In another editorial 19 long years ago, titled ‘Pluralism, propaganda and democracy’, Times of Malta had argued that the remit of political stations, their duties and their obligations to a national audience needs revisiting. It had also insisted that partiality by politically owned TV stations in their news bulletins and current affairs programmes is open to redress, adding that the Broadcasting Authority “must learn to put audience before political party”.

There have been no apparent improvements since, as, indeed, both the constitutional court judgment and the regulator’s decision against ONE News prove.

But there is hope. These two latest positive developments have set the ball rolling. Also, the constitutional case instituted by Lovin Malta challenging the impartiality ‘exemption’ clause in the law could turn out to be a gamechanger.

The pressure must continue. The ‘test case’ instituted by ADPD needs to be followed by others if the airwaves are not to remain hostage to party politics.