Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1541881
IN light of the provisions of our current law on the financing of political parties, Prime Minis- ter Robert Abela and Opposi- tion leader Alex Borg clashed over a particular aspect when they first met after the latter was elected PN leader. While Borg called for the state financing of political par- ties, Abela disagreed outright. Until not long ago, the com- plete lack of rules meant that anything was permitted. As political parties clearly could not survive merely with the funds raised through the col- lection of membership fees and as no form of public fund- ing was provided, each party had to find its own expedients. The state took no interest in such matters, leaving each party entirely free to raise the funds necessary for its func- tioning here and there, with- out being too scrupulous about the methods employed. Each party had to raise funds at all costs, and the richest were the strongest. The outcome was widespread reliance on dubious, under- cover financing practices. Since there were no rules and therefore no limits on either income or expenditure, parties competed with one another in a frantic race to find contribu- tors, and the entities contacted took advantage of the position of strength in which they then found themselves to provide funds, with strings attached, to those parties that would get their message across and safe- guard their interests. Many have interpreted Borg's call as a veiled opportunity to somehow get the state to fi- nance the PN's current huge debt of around €50 million. Yet, can an amended law to provide for state financing of political parties truly arrive at that stage, or can there be enough safeguards and mech- anisms to prevent such a sy- phoning of state funds? I contend that there can be a satisfactory way around this needless controversy that is hijacking any possibility of having a national discussion and public consultation. Interest in the issue of politi- cal party funding is a relatively recent phenomenon. Although this is understandable in the case of countries which began their transition to democra- cy only a short time ago, it is more surprising in those which have long had democratic sys- tems of government, Malta be- ing one of them, and already have considerable experience of political pluralism, elector- al contests and parliamentary election campaigns. Political parties are a funda- mental element of the demo- cratic systems of states and are an essential tool of expression of the political will of citizens. However, the funding of polit- ical parties and electoral cam- paigns should be subject to standards to prevent and fight corruption. Corruption represents such a serious threat to the rule of law, democracy, human rights, equity and social justice that it hinders economic develop- ment, endangers the stability of democratic institutions and undermines the moral founda- tions of society. The state and its citizens are both entitled to support po- litical parties, and, therefore, raising public awareness on the issues of prevention and fighting against corruption in the field of funding of political parties is essential to the good functioning of our democratic institutions. A growing public perception is concerned with problems relating to the illicit financing of our mainstream political parties. To ensure the equality of op- portunities for the different political forces, proper leg- islation can envisage public financing also extending to political bodies representing a significant section of the elec- toral body and presenting can- didates for election. The level of financing could be fixed by the legislator periodically, ac- cording to objective criteria. The financing of political parties through public funds should be on the condition that the accounts of political parties shall be subject to con- trol by specific public organs such as the National Audit Office (NAO). The state must be committed to promoting a policy of financial transparen- cy of political parties that ben- efit from public financing. The state should participate in campaign expenses through funding equal to a certain per- centage of a ceiling, appro- priate to the situation in the country and fixed in propor- tion to the number of voters concerned. This contribution may, however, be refused to parties that do not reach a cer- tain threshold of votes. Certain limitations may al- so be envisaged. These limi- tations may notably include a prohibition on contributions from enterprises engaged in industrial or commercial ac- tivities, as well as from reli- gious organisations. Any irregularity in the fi- nancing of a political party could entail sanctions propor- tionate to the severity of the offence, which may consist of the loss of all or part of pub- lic financing for the following year. Any irregularity in the financing of an electoral cam- paign could further entail, for the party or candidate at fault, sanctions proportionate to the severity of the offence that may consist of the loss or the total or partial reimbursement of the public contribution, the payment of a fine or another financial sanction or the an- nulment of the election. Providing a public source of funds would have the aim of placing parties and their can- didates on a more equal foot- ing. It is imperative to meet the requirements inherent in the inevitable cost of democracy. If the democratic process is to function well, it is necessary both to limit, as far as possi- ble, and reduce expenditure by political parties and at the same time to safeguard the principle of equality between parties, which often appears to be jeopardised in favour of mainstream parties, which, be- cause they obtain the highest scores and the largest number of seats, are allocated consid- erable public subsidies. State funds for political parties Mark Said Mark Said is a veteran lawyer 10 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 10 DECEMBER 2025 OPINION Left to right: Prime Minister Robert Abela and PN leader Alex Borg meeting at Labour HQ (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)