Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/795987
maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 8 MARCH 2017 News 6 How DB group opened a A self-inflicted mistake to accept funding from a company that eventually became involved in the country's most controversial land deal robbed the PN of its momentum and gave Labour a welcome distraction. But beyond the partisan zero sum game, will this case lead to a political reform of the party funding system? asks JAMES DEBONO ON Sunday, reacting to MaltaTo- day's story that PN deputy leader Mario de Marco had represented the DB Group in negotiations with the government over the transfer of the ITS land in St Julian's, Si- mon Busuttil announced that he had asked his deputy leader to stop representing the developers as he announced that he was asking the Auditor General to investigate the Seabank deal. Subsequently Busuttil received a text message from the CEO of DB Group, Arthur Gauci, "requesting an urgent meeting", so "that the party pays back what our group was asked to give all this time," and Busuttil reacted by describing it as a "threat" asking whether "the de- velopers donated money in order to bribe it (the PN), or to buy its silence?" In so doing Busuttil triggered a reaction from the developers who revealed that they were paying the monthly salaries of PN secretary- general Rosette Thake and CEO Brian St John. 18 hours later the party issued a statement in which it denied that its officials were paid by the DB Group owned by Silvio Debono, but confirmed receiving €3,500 in do- nations from the group throughout 2016, while its media arm Media. Link Communications had "com- mercial relations" worth €70,800 with two companies linked to Silvio Debono. Subsequently the DB Group con- firmed the €70,800 donation to Media Link while challenging the PN to state what "commercial ser- vices" the group had received from Media Link in 2016. How does this sequence of events impact on the protagonists? Simon Busuttil – Good governance dented? Overall the political funding rev- elations have robbed Busuttil of the momentum he was gaining in the past weeks in the wake of the Pana Committee visit to Malta, which served as a reminder to the govern- ment that the Panama issue was not dying away. For Busuttil the text message sent by Gauci represented a Hobson's choice, for while by revealing its contents publicly he triggered the damning reply by Gauci, had he kept it hush he risked being fur- ther conditioned by the DB Group, whom Busuttil now suspects of col- lusion with Labour. But by expressing his outrage at the attempt to condition his party through donations, Busuttil inad- vertently prompted a reply, which confirmed that his party was re- ceiving money from the group in- volved in the controversial deal, which he was criticising. In so do- ing he seemed determined to walk into an ambush, which he may well have anticipated. Still, had he cho- sen to keep mum, he may well have landed himself in even more dan- gerous territory, giving DB Group more leverage over him. Faced with the revelations of funding from the DB group, Bu- suttil now justifies accepting dona- tions from the group by highlight- ing the reality that political parties presently rely on donations for their existence, which is partly true. Yet he seems to suggest that businesses that donate money from political parties do not normally do so to condition their actions in opposi- tion or when they are elected to government. What is sure is that had Busuttil had the foresight to refuse donations from Debono's group he would have spared his party the damaging embarrass- ment. Ultimately Busuttil's gamble to present this case, as one proving his independence from donors, was not entirely convincing. In fact the se- quence of events suggests that Bu- suttil was torn between pressures to oppose the deal coming from civil society and the media and pressures to keep the peace with a major business group, which was financing his own party. For while it is true that the party has now spoken out against the ITS deal, it only upped the ante fol- lowing revelations that the party deputy leader was representing the developers in negotiations with government. While party spokes- persons Marthese Portelli and Ryan Callus did object to the agree- ment in parliament, this was over- shadowed by a show of force against Minister Konrad Mizzi. In this case the party was always one step be- hind public opinion. It was only on Sunday that Busuttil decided to take the case to the Auditor Gen- eral, two full weeks after the media revealed that the developers would have to pay only €15 million for the highly prized piece of land. Overall the case illustrates the pitfalls of Busuttil's choice to turn good governance into one of his major issues. Simon Busuttil has made good governance his central political plank and by doing so he has put the government on the defensive in a number of occasions. In so doing he is also tapping into an- ger over the Labour's government main shortcoming and on the issue on which there is genuine political anger. But he did so fully knowing the past heavy baggage of his party, which was in government for 25 years almost continuously, and in view of the daily reality of running a bankrupt party which cannot sur- vive without donors. The party is also led by two deputy leaders who not only come from two powerful dynasties but who each run a legal business which necessarily puts them in contact with big enterprise. Moreover having inherited a bankrupt party, can Busuttil af- ford to ignore the harsh reality of his party's liquidity? And in his new role as an anti corruption cru- sader, Busuttil, whose image as a lawyer turned politician and MEP was built on moderation, has found himself taking the posture of an in- surgent. This may have enabled Busuttil to grow in stature as a leader but he may still lack the gravitas to con- vince the electorate when he says that he really means it when he says he wants to drain the swamp. Moreover Busuttil has also tried to change the expectations of his party's electorate, to make it less tolerant towards party officials who fall short of ethical standards. But this may put party officials and Bu- suttil himself in trouble when they themselves fall short of these ex- pectations. In some ways this may contribute in raising the bar for all politicians. But Busuttil's greatest liability may well be the aura of sanctimo- nious rectitude he has built around himself, simply because this may be irreconcilable with leading a mass party which depends on donors and is led by people who earn a living from deals involving fat cats. Still at this stage Busuttil has no choice but to carry on the same path. The silver lining for Busuttil is that this incident has prompted him to appoint an independent commission chaired by judge Gio- vanni Bonello to draft proposals on party donations, which he prom- ised will be included in his party's manifesto, something that may give Busuttil more clout in advanc- ing the good governance cause. Still so far Busuttil seems to suf- fer from the Sisyphus predicament which often sees him rolling a heavy boulder up a mountain but which always rolls back after find- ing some new obstacle. The latest sequence of events may be one of many obstacles he will be facing in the run up to the election. Mario de Marco's Achilles heel As one of the most effective and popular elements in the Gonzi ad- ministration who retains a moder- ate appeal to voters, de Marco was an asset for the party. But business relationships already exposed in the aftermath of Panamagate have always been de Marco's Achilles heel. Surely he made a gross political misjudgment in accepting legal work related to what was bound to be a controversial deal done on the watch of the Muscat government. Still de Marco may well have been misled by Busuttil's previous ac- ceptance of his legal work for the DB Group. In fact Busuttil now states that de Marco's role only became untenable when the oppo- sition asked the auditor to investi- gate the deal. But even if this was the case de Marco could well have smelled the rat. His position in the party has been surely weakened, not just because like many others before him he was making a buck through profession- al work for a major developer, but because the writing was already on the wall when he accepted a com- mission from a company perceived to be close to the Labour govern- ment. For judging from the govern- ment's track record on land deals this particular deal was bound to be the subject of political controversy. In many ways de Marco confirmed his reputation as a reluctant politi- cian who cannot choose between politics and his professional career. Ultimately the only solution to such conflicts of interests is a par- liament where MPs are paid de- cently as full timers on condition that they make a choice between professional and political work. But that is only part of the story. In the current conjuncture where the op- position is constantly harping on good governance, de Marco may well have chosen to keep a distance from a developer keen on a favoura- ble deal from a Labour government. Silvio Debono's unorthodox intervention By allowing his group to take on the opposition leader, the flamboy- ant developer, an ex-Nationalist who benefitted from permits grant- ed for his ODZ hotel in Ghadira under a Nationalist government, seems to have decided to put all his eggs in one basket: that of the La- bour party. In many ways Debono's behav- iour has been unorthodox in not showing the same reluctance of other businessmen to enter the po- litical fray. It may well suggest that Debono feels financially strong enough to take the flak. But it may also suggest that he expected the opposition not to take a stance, simply because he was giving them money. While Debono is surely not unique in the business world to have such expectations, his frank- ness about it is remarkable. The announcement by the DB Group that it wanted its donations back from the PN after Busuttil's decision to report the deal to the Auditor General was a blatant con- firmation that donations are meant to condition political debate in the country. The DB Group's readiness to take on the opposition leader may well suggest that it is currying favour with the government, on which it depends for the issue of permits for the mega project. Surely the cur- Silvio Debono – his DB Group has asked for a refund of the money it gave to the Nationalist Party