Well-functioning political parties are essential for democracy to thrive. They offer the electorate a choice on which party should run the country. Also, by joining a political party, citizens vote to choose the leader and top officials as well as contribute time, thought, talent and even material help, including financial.
In short, political parties constantly allow citizens to exercise their basic democratic rights.
However, the political forces need to have the means to function and fulfil their role according to law.
Nationalist Party leader Bernard Grech has just publicly declared his party has run up debts totalling €32 million. Party leaders usually keep such matters very close to their chest and not only because of ‘commercial’ reasons.
His comments throw a spotlight on an issue that has long been festering but has never really been addressed with the head-on commitment that it warrants: the state of party finances.
To function properly, political parties, like any other organisation, need money, good money, especially since they now also have to carry the financial burden of TV and radio stations as well as print media.
Apart from the losses sustained by their media, it is an open secret that both parties owe the government millions of euros in tax, VAT and energy bill arrears.
In an attempt to sustain their operations, they came up with different initiatives including trying to run certain branches on commercial lines.
This also meant that, unlike the past, a party could no longer depend on volunteers. Wages and salaries always represent a big portion of an organisation’s expenditure.
At one point, in 2016, the Nationalist Party had even introduced a loan scheme, entering into a private agreement with individuals lending it €10,000 for 10 years against an interest payment of four per cent.
The last time figures were mentioned it was when Simon Busuttil was still party leader and he had revealed that nearly €3 million had been raised from this scheme.
Judging by what Grech has just said about the party’s debt, it does not seem it has been of much use.
Of course, the parties’ biggest source of revenue is donations, declared or not. Not even fools and the blinkered will believe the situation in this regard is fully under control, notwithstanding the provisions of the Financing of Political Parties Act.
Still, it should be amply clear to all that, for the sake of democracy itself and the alternation of power, political parties must have the means to function adequately. In a country like ours where two parties dominate, it is in their interest that a robust system should be in place, whether they are in government or in opposition.
The beginning of a new legislature is the right time to put all cards on the table, start making concrete decisions and then implement them without any loss of time.
Ridding the parties of the financial burden in the form of their broadcasting media should not be such a tough nut to crack, especially since both sides seem to agree the venture is far from feasible.
The state could help by putting at their disposal one of the public broadcaster’s channels, adequately regulated by a reformed broadcasting authority or a new entity that is not hijacked by the parties themselves.
The real tough nut would be ensuring that if parties are to rely on donations, these are genuine contributions made by participants in a democratic exercise rather than a ‘money for favours’ investment.