PLPN

Party financing agreement a must

Two days ago we had a Zolabyte by PN MP Franco Debono who continues his quest for the regulation of party financing. Today we bring you a voice from the other side of the house. Labour MP Leo Brincat has been involved in the issue since the Galdes Report on party financing. Here he exposes the pitfalls of the process of regulation and points out what must be solved in order to move on. Is Labour’s Leo right in lamenting that “we are already too late”? (article reproduced with the kind permission of the author).

The article by Nationalist MP Franco Debono on party financing (September 8th) made interesting reading.

The core issue and problem is that, although he seems to believe that this is an urgent matter that needs to be dealt with without any further undue delay, I was never ever convinced of his own party’s commitment to plugging the gap of this democratic deficit.

I write through experience, having had the honour to serve as the Labour Party’s nominee on the ad hoc committee chaired by the late Anthony Galdes, a former civil servant and private sector senior executive of impeccable qualities and standards, that eventually led to the so-called Galdes Report.

There are various aspects that have continued to worry me and haunt me since.

Fifteen years have passed and the Nationalist government that has been at the helm of the country for more than 13 of these years never ever made any serious effort to conclude matters on this issue or legislate on the matter. Hardly ever did it, as a party, make any formal commitment to spell out its intentions on the subject and show it is prepared to go the whole hog to ensure that agreement will be finally reached on this important issue.

On the contrary, the perception the Nationalist Party would prefer to perpetrate the status quo continues to gain ground not only in political but also in commercial and entrepreneurial circles.

There is hardly any point in my colleague Dr Debono lamenting that no significant developments have taken place since 1995 and that no concrete measures have been implemented when there was never any real agreement on the document’s findings itself… something that left the implementation process as dead as a dodo from the word go.

In the run-up to the last election, the PL had committed itself publicly to implement the recommendations of the Galdes Commission on party financing while the general feeling now seems to be that one should take that report as the basis for moving ahead, given the decade and a half that have passed since then.

If one wants proof of the PN’s lack of real commitment on party financing one should scrutinise the fine details and the differences that actually derailed the Galdes Commission.

That the three established parties agree with the principle of transparency in party financing is not enough. As the adage goes, the devil is in the detail and, if my memory serves me well, the proposals put forward by the PN during the formulation of the Galdes report had made it clear they were only after piecemeal solutions that almost defeated the whole purpose of the exercise by ensuring that the parties in question will not optimise the potential benefit of such an accord.

It is interesting to note that, at the time, the commission had been made up of the PL (through yours truly), the PN, Alternattiva Demokratika and Dolores Cristina, who was an independent member and who, to be fair, gave many positive inputs throughout the various discussions we had.

Ironically, both the AD and the only independent member (Ms Cristina) had agreed at the time with the benchmarks proposed by the PL. It was the PN that had stalled the process.

The time is already overdue for such agreement to be reached on such an issue – regardless of whether there is a functioning parliamentary select committee or not – since, by next April, this government will have been in power for three years in this legislature. With elections then fast approaching it is more likely there will be more foot dragging by the government side to reach any form of agreement.

On the other hand, I feel one should also legislate concurrently on the expenditure limits and funding of political candidates too. This, not only to ensure a proper level playing field during election campaigns but also to ensure that certain candidates who might easily find their way to the House (again or for the first time) will not have any strings attached through contributions they received.

The capping of expenditure by political candidates must also be updated and revised upwards to a more realistic level to ensure that the existing laws will not continue to be flagrantly abused of as happens regularly in every election campaign.

In an interview published in another section of the media, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando had been reported to have dropped the biggest hint to date that the government may be reconsidering its earlier opposition to the Galdes conclusions (September 26, 2007). Alas, since then, we have not seen any concrete proof of this, no matter how strongly Dr Pullicino Orlando might genuinely feel on the matter.

Now is the time for the three political parties to get real on the whole issue of political party financing.

The PL has already come forward with a 15-point plan on transparency, which many conveniently chose to either ignore, ridicule or downplay.

On the issue of party financing, people expect that, rather than having these parties disagreeing to agree, if they all believe strongly in transparency they should knock into place an agreement on party financing without further delay.

We are in my opinion already far too late.

Website: www.leobrincat.com

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog. Accompanying images selected by J’accuse.
****

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Party Financing and Democracy

There’s one MP in the house who has maintained a constant position with regard party financing. In an article appearing in today’s papers Franco Debono reiterates his call for proper regulation of party financing while drawing on international reports that describe how failed regulation leads to “trading in influence”. We publish the article in its entirety here as another Zolabyte with the kind permission of the author. General Franco strikes again!

Some months ago, while being interviewed on public television (Dissett), I had described the issue of political party financing as extremely urgent and a priority. I strongly argued that the issue should be tackled immediately, considering its direct bearing on our country’s democracy. The interviewer had dismissed my claims to urgency, apparently comforted by the fact that the issue was, at the time, being tackled by a parliamentary committee.

Recent events have, since, brought work in that committee to a standstill. Moreover, about 15 years ago and we were, compared to most countries, already late, a report (the Galdes Report, 1995) had been tabled in the House of Representatives but still, to date, nothing has come out of it. Since then, no significant developments have taken place and no concrete measures have been implemented with regard to the issue under discussion.

The issue of party finance is crucial and central to any democracy in this day and age.

As the Council of Europe’s Third European Conference of Specialised Services in the Fight against Corruption, held between September 28-30, 1998, had declared: “…political parties play an essential role in democratic systems.

“Their operation requires appropriate resources while electoral campaigns have become expensive. Faced with increasing expenses, political parties are unable to live only on their members’ fees and have to solicit and accept donations. Trading in influence has, thus, developed. In order to remedy this situation, which is detrimental to the rule of law and democracy, it is necessary to ensure political parties are financed in a wholly transparent manner.”

Political parties are challenged today with complex tasks, including researching and developing relevant and updated policies as well as communicating their message in the best possible manner in order to garner maximum support and win elections. Such tasks necessitate a sound structural organisation and infrastructure, which cannot be put in place and function without adequate financial resources.

The process of securing the necessary funds could lead to abuse. Parties could potentially end up at the mercy of particular donors who may seek to exert control through undue or unlawful influence. Legislation all over the world has been enacted precisely with the aim of averting such jeopardy and limit the dangers to democracy.

Since political parties are not just voluntary organisations accountable solely to their members, but organs of a constitutional nature and relevance, the necessary legislation tackling the most urgent issue of disclosure and public auditing of parties’ finances should be enacted. Strengthening democracy means ensuring political parties are financed in an accountable and transparent manner.

Thus, the Galdes Report, tackles such issues as whether there should be a ceiling on private donations, whether donations exceeding a certain amount should be prohibited and sums exceeding which amount should import a duty of disclosure.

In the United States, disclosure of small amounts by small donors was held by the Supreme Court to potentially seriously infringe on the rights to privacy and association and belief and, thus, one must always strive to strike a balance.

Tackling the issue of eligibility for state financing, linked primarily to the number of votes obtained by a party in the previous general election, the Galdes Report again establishes the requirement of the compulsory publication of financial statements and accounts, as well as disclosure of particular donations, exceeding certain amounts. It proposes strict penalties in cases of default or non-observance, enforced by a regulatory and supervising authority to be established under the same proposed legislation.

The report had, for instance, also tackled the issue of candidates’ expenses during election campaigns, which amount, just under €1,400, 15 years and four elections ago was deemed too low and unrealistic. It was suggested that it should be increased, in addition to proposing a more realistic definition of the relevant period preceding an election. We are still debating this today and nothing concrete has as yet materialised.

This aspect of transparency is important too.

It is time to rethink the structure and internal organisation and set-up of political parties as constitutional vehicles. It is time to think about the relevance of political party stations today. It is a time of great challenges where we must continue to revise and upgrade the constitutional architecture for the future.

As has always happened under successive Nationalist Administrations, we must continue strengthening democracy and this is the next step.

It is time to pass from reports and committees to action and legislation. And we must continue on the good work being done in public broadcasting , upgrading it too.

Dr Debono wrote his doctoral thesis for the law degree on The Constitutional Implications Of Party Organisation And Party Finance (1999).

Website: www.francodebono.info

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog. Accompanying images selected by J’accuse.
****

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Gunpowder, Reason and Plot

Fireworks were invented in China and their original purpose was to scare off evil spirits. The next step up from the manufacture of fireworks would be the creation of gunpowder – the deadly explosive concotion with the power to take life away. The basic chemistry behind fireworks is the same chemistry behind fireworks. While one form of the concotion is used to illuminate the night sky with maravillious colours of Gandalfian beauty the other is a minister of death and disaster and to fuel the dangerous power at the end of barrels from the blunderpuss all the way to the magnum and colt. There you have it.. power harnessed and power uncontrolled.

on the history of the firework

A Chinese monk named Li Tian, who lived near the city of Liu Yang in Hunan Province, is credited with the invention of firecrackers about 1,000 years ago. The Chinese people celebrate the invention of the firecracker every April 18 by offering sacrifices to Li Tian. During the Song Dynasty, the local people established a temple to worship Li Tian. The firecrackers, both then and now, are thought to have the power to fend off evil spirits and ghosts that are frightened by the loud bangs of the firecrackers. Firecrackers are used for such purposes today at most events such as births, deaths and birthdays. Chinese New Year is a particularly popular event that is celebrated with firecrackers to usher in the new year free of the evil spirits. (history of fireworks)

on europe and the firework

Generally Marco Polo is credited with bringing the Chinese gunpowder back to Europe in the 13th century, although some accounts credit the Crusaders with bringing the black powder to Europe as they returned from their journeys. Once in Europe, the black powder was used for military purposes, first in rockets, then in canons and guns. Italians were the first Europeans who used the black powder to manufacture fireworks. Germany was the other European country to emerge as a fireworks leader along with Italy in the 18th century. It is interesting to note that many of the leading American display companies are operated by families of Italian descent such as the Grucci family, Rozzi family, and Zambelli family. (history of firework continued)

on firework factory explosions

Too many words have been spent. Futile speech and hypocritical mourning for “heros” whose lives suffer the ugliest of clichés – going up in smoke. In a country that is buried in ignorance, that champions populism and that is run by proxy there is not much to hope for. Only last week we celebrated our brethren winning some concours in Spain for firework production. Only last week the Mosta blast was buried beneath the rubble of short-term memory and swept under the convenient carpet of forgetfulness.  And now the country mourns again. A family. A whole branch of a family tree is buried under yet another nonsensical blast. From grandfather to unborn child – they have all vanished in one big bang that shook the West. The nearby chapel of Saint Dimitri brought little solace. The balkan Saint did not ride to bring the Farrugia’s to safety as he had done for Zgugina’s son many moons ago. And the Xaghra feast will go on as usual.

on spin, (t)reason and slash and burn

Legislation is lacking. Defective chemicals or no defective chemicals the regulatory lacuna is as huge as the new hole in GHarb’s grounds. Over twenty years of nationalist government and we will still be crossing our fingers come next festa season. There are no balls to tackle the problem and the worst part of it is that the spinmasters come a-scrambling over the dead bodies of the latest fallen as soon as they see a new opportunity to shoot at the opposition. It appears that Joseph Muscat’s father is one of the importers of the chemicals used to make fireworks. We are now one step short of blaming Joseph Muscat for the explosion. it is clear as crystal now – the PN government has not taken firm action to regulate (or eliminate?) the firework industry because it would (obviously) find no support from labour since Joe’s daddy imports the goods (obviously).  Excuse the sarcastic brackets but even if that were true I’d expect PN to be strong enough and take the decision with or without Labour’s go-ahead. But they cannot can they? Because it’s not just Joseph’s daddy. It’s many many a money pushing peasant who cannot live without the smell of burnt fireworks during festa season. And what would PN coffers be without the firework lobby? Most PN MPs would not be in parliament would they? Are we sure it’s just Joseph’s daddy that is stopping spineless politicians from taking a firm stand? Bah.

on the light fantasticke

In Strasbourg last month I witnessed a beautiful, breathtaking lightshow that went on every night illuminating the monumental cathedral. The son et lumière (that’s light and sound) show had everybody lost for words as fifteen minutes of lights playing on the facade and from within the church while classical music filled the square proved that not much is lost when fireworks are foregone. The biggest risk with a light show in the village piazza is the non-collaboratorial cock-up by Enemalta and the power suppliers. It’s time to think lateral. The firework industry needs to start paying for the damage. Already the residents of Gharb are looking for compensation for the damage wrought by the latest explosion.

How long before houses are shook to the ground and the firework war takes its first “civilian” victim? Will that be enough for the government to take firmer action? Will it be enough to stop the spinmongers jumping on the let’s blame Joseph for everything wagon? Frankly I do not give two hoots about what Joseph thinks or what his interests may be. If he were to stoop so low as to back the firework lobby for the sake of private interests then that would only reaffirm many suspicions on the politics of opportunism that seems to be rampant in the PL – but let us not lose the main focus. We have a government that governs with a majority thanks to the rules of the game. If that government really has the goodwill of the people at heart then it should not be relying on its spin machine to deviate attention but it should be taking concrete action. Now.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sliema: Reaping what was sown

AD Chairman and Michael Briguglio has given J’accuse permission to reproduce this article in the Zolabytes section. We consider it a further contribution on the current debate on Local Councils and an insiders insight on the mechanisms operating behind LC politics. Mike blogs regularly at Mike’s Beat (see j’accuse blogroll – we’re kicking that off again slowly slowly).

Sliema is really getting what it deserves. I am sorry to say this but the last local council elections were a clear example of how, at times, factors that have little to do with political vision influence electoral results. In a few words, Sliema is now reaping what was sown. I might be biased in saying this, given that I was not elected in 2009, having been elected in 2003 and 2006. But I invite others to contradict my statements below.

Beyond the battle between the official Nationalist Party position, the Nikki Dimech faction and the strange alliances of certain Labour councillors, one has to view the whole “Sliema” issue holistically.

Given the lack of proper legislation on financing of electoral campaigns, it is no surprise that political clientelism and business interests play a key role in Maltese politics even at a local level. Indeed, if one looks at the last local election in Sliema it would be very difficult to believe that all candidates’ electoral expenses were within the allowed limits. Many residents to this day tell me it is more than obvious that local elections are not based on a democratic and just level playing field.

In the last council election, one could witness social events such as receptions, the systematic provision of transport for elderly voters, electoral promises to various constituents that have nothing to do with political vision, telephone campaigns of the “Big Brother is watching you” type and so forth. There surely was no level playing field among all candidates.

This was even evident in the character-assassination-whispering-campaigns, at times between candidates belonging to the same party.

Given that Malta has practically no legislation regarding the financing of political parties, this necessarily leads to pressure from business interests for political favours. Hence, it is imperative that contracts awarded by local councils are properly scrutinised.

It is precisely for this reason that when I was councillor I consistently proposed having a contracts manager. I was supported by PN councillor Julian Galea on this… yet a decision by the council was consistently postponed.

Having professional administrative staff is imperative for efficient local councils. Yet, the present council apparently thought otherwise as one of its first decisions was to oust executive secretary Josef Grech.

The work of Mr Grech, his staff and of certain councillors, who, in previous years, did their best to ensure that Sliema’s voice was heard and who worked as a team, was basically discarded.

As for myself, in my six years as councillor I worked as hard as possible to help improve the quality of life in Sliema. I gave priority to issues such as public consultation, sustainable development, the impact of construction on the community, waste management, pollution, public transport, swimming and animal welfare. I worked well with coun­cillors irrespective of their political affiliation and I often managed to convince both Nationalist and Labour council members on various issues.

Well, actually, in my eyes, there were “four” political parties in the council, namely, Green, Labour, the PN “Pullicino faction” and the PN “Arrigo faction”. Perhaps the most surreal experience of all was when certain PN councillors objected that the council should praise the government for the reclaiming and embellishment of St Anne Square!

I thought I would get my best result ever in 2009 but the opposite happened. I was obviously disappointed and I was about to quit politics, feeling a sense of freedom in the process… But, as philosopher Louis Althusser tells us, “the future lasts a long time” … Indeed, I changed my mind after a few weeks and ended being elected AD chairman.

Whenever I am stopped by Sliema residents who complain about all sorts of issues, I remind them of a powerful tool they still possess – the vote.

If you want change, vote for it…

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
****

Impeachment Day (Part I)

The vote of no confidence in Sliema Mayor Nikki Dimech will be taken today. The Times reports that all six remaining Sliema Councillors need to show up in order to ensure that Joanna Gonzi replaces Nikki Dimech as Mayor of the council. The four Labour councillors are expected to abstain on the vote as directed from HQ while Dimech and Camilleri – the two ex PN councillors who resigned from the party are expected to vote against.

Article 29 of Chapter 363 (Local Councils Act)
29. (1) The Mayor or Deputy Mayor shall cease to hold their
office upon a vote of no confidence delivered by a majority of the
Councillors in office.

(2) The motion proposing a vote of no confidence in the Mayor
or Deputy Mayor shall be signed by at least one third of the
Councillors in office and shall specify the reason for such motion
and propose another Councillor to be elected as Mayor or Deputy
Mayor as the case may be.

J’accuse chooses “impeachment day” to ask a few questions of the current system. DimechGate (and the ancillary cases involving PL and PN councillors in different localities) have brought to light a few shortcomings of the dealings of political parties at local council level. J’accuse does not intend to advocate against the participation of parties in local politics but rather would like to question what the added value actually is and whether the parties are really providing a service to the various communities by bringing their partisan terms to the local table.

Condizionamento Arbitrale

In dealing with the issue we take a step away from the allegations regarding the police questioning of the current Sliema Mayor in the hope that any doubts raised and alarm bells rung are replied and seen to in the appropriate judicial forum. This is not about an extended conspiracy theory involving some hidden arm of the law directed from some party HQ. We do feel the need to say, however, that police intervention in certain matters might suffer from what in football (at least when it was trendy to bandy conspiracy theories) is referred to as “condizionamento psicologico arbitrale” – and that this does not only apply to PN intervention (vide PBO) but also to sudden trysts of fancy by the PL (vide Anglu Farrugia’s crusade on purchased votes).  This condizionamento arbitrale is a symptom but not a cause of the current ails.

Partiti Politici

The role of political parties in local councils was hotly debated from the start. The PN had no qualms in spreading its political participation at local council level. Labour on the other hand took a step back from the first elections and only entered the fray at alater stage. The very notion of a “political party” in the law applicable to Local Councils is interesting. Under Cap 363 – the Local Councils Act – a “political party ” is defined as follows:

“political party” means, except as otherwise provided for in this Act, any person or group of persons contesting the elections of a Local Council as one group bearing the same name (Article 2 – Interpretation)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unless you take into account the Kafkesque detail of the Third Schedule to the Act (entitled Local Councils (Elections) Regulations, 1993) in which the electoral fetish of us Maltese is reflected in full blasts with such minutiae as the behaviour of Directors of Retirement Homes during election time being regulated and above all – access to every step of the process – from printing to counting – for party agents being guranteedd… unless you register that, parties have little or no mention in the actual political running of councils under the letter of the law.

The most important provision in which parties make a fleeting (but very relevant) appearance is Article 25 dealing with the election of the Mayor:

25 (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of article 29, the office of Mayor in any Local Council shall be occupied by such elected Councillor who at the last local election shall have obtained the highest number of votes in the first count amongst the candidates of the political party which at such elections obtained the absolute majority of Councillors in such Council. Such Councillor shall assume the office of Mayor at the first sitting of the Council after such local election. If for any reason such Councillor refuses to occupy the office of Mayor, the Councillor with the second highest number of votes from the aforesaid political party shall assume office, and so on, until the office of Mayor is filled:

Provided that if the Mayor vacates office during the Council’s term, the office of Mayor shall be occupied by such person belonging to the same political party who had obtained the highest number of votes in the first count after the Mayor who is vacating office:

Provided further that where the law does not provide otherwise, the Mayor shall be chosen from amongst the Councillors.

Peachy innit? Bear in mind that party refers to not just PN, PL or AD but also to any other group of individuals contesting under one name: e.g. Società Filarmonika Hal-Bomba. In a hypothetical vote even if a member of a newly council of five got over half of the first count votes to get elected but the rest of the votes were share equally between another four candidates of one “party” then the new Mayor would not be the independent person who garnered most votes but rather the candidate who has most votes among those elected on the party list.

Strangely, this system does away with the simple vote among councillors to see who among them enjoys the support of the majority of councillors (whatever the colour or creed) as is done (hypothetically) for the selection of Prime Minister in parliament. So essentially a party will vie for an absolute majority of councillors in an election after which it is guaranteed that there will be no “freak vote” whereby its councillors “defect” and vote for a popular “independent” – and boo to self-determination.

The role of parties in the 80 articles of the Local Councils Act starts and stops with the determination of the Mayor. The rest of the Act (particularly the aforementioned Schedule 3) is more concerned with the hobby of thousands that is the electoral process, electoral agents, perspexes and ballot papers. So the law is not exactly illuminating with regards to the interaction between a political party and its elected members within the council.

A che prò?

So why does a councillor like Robert Musumeci “take exception” to calls for parties to get their hands out of Local Councils? What’s the big deal? How is a relative party heavyweight like Secretary General Paul Borg Olivier drawn to risking his and his party’s reputation by attempting to oblige at least one councillor to use her vote against her will in order to obtain the necessary number of votes to get an impeachment of a Mayor going?

The answers are not so easy and we need to step back in order to get a clearer picture. As I said earlier my concern is to discover how parties could be beneficial to a local council and whether they are actually inputting such benefits. The impression right now is simply that while the PLPN are eager to have a finger in every council pie they are only really heard of when distancing themselves from those who fail to perform well. Furthermore there is a distinct impression that there is no nation-wide policy that applies to local councils in similar circumstances.

Faustian reasoning may play the fool with regard to Karol Aquilina and requisitioned houses elsewhere in Malta but Karol’s position on the Siggiewi house sounds very much like a policy that could, and should, be applied elsewhere by members of the same party in the interests of the community. That this does not happen cannot be taken as proof that Aquilina’s move was opportunistic (true) but it definitely paints a picture of a haphazard one-off application that cannot in any way be attributed or equated to the home party unless similar actions are really triggered off elsewhere.

That there is no evidence of a coordinating body within the parties that is used to trigger off local-friendly programmes across different councils is a clear sign of the misuse of the party ticket. For what worth is it to aim to garner as many majorities as possible in the councils of Camillo and Peppone when there is no programme to follow through? The dangers of such wide nets simply for the number are being evidenced now as both PN and PL find themselves burdened with scandals they never bargained for. That such scandals can and will happen is normal – when a sequence of scandals related to mismanagement and mishandling of public resources occurs then we begin to question the preparation of such candidates. Worse still we question whether the culture of curried favours and political obligations is now too well dug in into our council system.

So the first question we pose in this first part is this:

1) If we accept the role of political parties (and not just PLPNAD) in Local Councils how should or could this role be defined? Is this a question for legislators to address (aihmè the PLPN legislators) or is it something that should come from within the parties?

We’ll be back with more.

Coming Soon (later today): Why Party?

Update on Thursday : apologies for delay.

Yesterday’s rentrée prevented us from extending the interesting debate sparked off by the last post. Meanwhile interesting developments in DimechGate might allow more factual light to be thrown into the miasma of different interests and allow us to comment more clearly on the rot in Local Councils and the parallel worries associated with party politics. Later today we will be posting a full post on this issue and the main theme will b “Why Party?” or what is the purpose of party participation in Local Councils. What guarantees are political parties giving voters? What is their constitutional role in the system? How much control can a party legally and effectively exert on its list of candidates? Can we rightly assume that a party is “vetting” its candidates for suitability to run for election? Can we equally assume that a party provides a support structure for its councillors that makes them more efficient purely through the economies of scale and continuity? Do our parties have anything that could be described as local policies (applied in multiple councils where possible)? Are parties using different measures and standards for their mini-politicians? Once again, what is the measure that tells us when the balance of loyalty to party vs loyalty to constituents has been broken? The constitution makes little or no mention of political parties – they have “infiltrated” the system by custom and usage – is it really that wrong for an elected person from a constituency to trump his party loyalties with those towards his constituency – especially when the so-called “party principles” are not so clear in certain cases? All that and more… later on J’accuse.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta