PARTIES are rubbing their hands in anticipation of a Christmas bonus that will come in the shape of a massive hike in government financing.
The 2007 budget provides for £1.5 million in party financing, but reports say that politicians are pushing for an increase of up to 150 per cent.
That would require an amendment to the budget, which would need to be approved by parliament very quickly, before the Christmas recess.
But whereas political parties should have no problem fast tracking the amendment, they are not as keen on introducing regulations governing transparency in party finances.
Taxpayers should also be interested: the government’s financing of parties currently amounts to 1/1000 of the budget.
One of the principal arguments in favour is that raising government assistance will help parties avoid the temptation of doing deals with suspect contributors – companies based at home or abroad.
However, many recognise that without accountability, parties will continue their wayward practices, no matter how much money they get from the government.
“Under no circumstances should government financing of parties be divorced from parties’ accountability – their obligation to produce an annual statement of accounts, so that citizens know where their money is going,” said political analyst Louis Igoumenides.
DISY deputy Christos Pourgourides disagreed that an increase in government grants should necessarily be coupled with new transparency regulations, but said he was all for better checks on parties.
“Government assistance or not, parties should have clean books,” Pourgourides told the Mail.
“Not only that, they should be made to keep clean books by the law. Doing it voluntarily is just won’t do it.”
But Pourgourides stressed that publishing accounts was not good enough.
“For proper control, parties should submit receipts, invoices etc. containing details. A simple breakdown of their income just won’t do it,” he said.
Pourgourides said DISY has drafted a bill making the publication of such accounts mandatory under the law.
Among other things, the bill proposes the establishment of an independent body of auditors – not a House committee, for obvious reasons – and a limit to how much money private corporations can give to parties.
The proposal is to be submitted at the plenum next Thursday, Pourgourides said.
It remains to be seen whether the parties’ professed commitment to transparency will move from words into action.
There are a number of reasons why parties are unwilling to divulge the sources of their funding – and yet these have nothing to do with dodgy transactions.
For one thing, parties probably do not want the voters to know that they all receive tens of thousands of pounds from the Church. Then there are the big developers and the banks that also contribute funds to the parties at election time. Admittedly, disclosure of party sponsors might discourage them from giving money and create additional financial problems for the parties. And cash-strapped parties with big debts are even more vulnerable to striking dubious deals with those who contribute funds. It’s a vicious cycle.
Then there is the whole fuss about how the cash will be shared out. As expected, the smaller parties want more equality in the distribution, while the larger ones say financing should be proportional to their electoral strength.
Also, only parties represented in Parliament are entitled to government funding. So for instance, the United Democrats who failed to gain a seat in last May’s elections, have been cut off dry.
“Unfortunately, the need for checks on party finances is a hollow slogan, peddled from time to time… but nothing has actually been done about it,” said United Democrats leader Michalis Papapetrou.
“I fear that if now the parties pocket the money without any conditions, they will soon forget all about this hyped-up transparency,” he added.
This year, some £2.5 million was distributed, as follows: a fixed £40,000 grant; £16,000 for parties participating in European political groupings; the remaining £1.8 million was spread among the parties according to their strength, based on the 2001 legislative elections.
According to Politis, House Speaker Demetris Christofias is in consultations with the President so that, before the Christmas break, the government approves the increase in party funding.
The politicians are in a rush to have the extra cash approved. And they wouldn’t exactly complain if there were no strings attached. Parties say there is not enough time to debate the introduction of controls before the year’s end, but have pledged to look at the matter once Parliament reconvenes.
Cyprus is a member of the Council of Europe’s Group of States against corruption (GRECO). The GRECO Statute was set up as an instrument for monitoring and evaluating anti-corruption.
Former GRECO participant and MEP Panayiotis Demetriou told the Mail that the statute is not binding on signatories. Nevertheless, he added, it is an effective pressure lever on Council of Europe members, particularly on countries with rampant corruption in public life who aspire to join the European Union.
Some of GRECO’s main concerns are:
l should there be different rules on financing regular activities of political parties and on electoral campaigns?
l what are possible sources of finances ? membership fees, other private sources
(i.e. profits of party-owned businesses, private donations, bank loans), public finances?
l should there be any limitations concerning amounts of donations and qualities of donors?
l could private donations be anonymous and coming from abroad ?
l should there be any limits concerning the expenditure of political parties?
l what are the possible criteria for public financing of political parties?
l how to regulate indirect public funding of political parties?
l how to ensure real transparency and publicity of political parties‘ finances?
l how should reporting requirements for political parties on their finances look like?
l how to ensure independent monitoring of political parties’ finances?
l how to ensure effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for possible breaches of legal regulations concerning political parties’ financing?
l how to ensure at least a minimum level of independency of political parties towards their donors.
