The arguments of the two sides – legislature and executive – regarding the law on disclosing the names of donors to the Agency for Social Support that is run by the first lady, were heard by the Supreme Constitutional Court on Wednesday. President Nikos Christodoulides had refused to sign off the law by which the names of people or companies that made donations of more that €5,000 to the agency had to be made public. He claimed it was unconstitutional and wanted it annulled.
This is a bizarre stand to take considering one of Christodoulides’ main election pledges was transparency. By opposing the law, he is preventing transparency which could give rise to suspicions of corruption even if it does not exist. And he is being disingenuous in defending his position on constitutional grounds, some rather dubious, when everyone knows that transparency is primarily a political tool for fighting corruption. This is not to suggest that the president’s wife, who runs the fund, is in any way corrupt and would grant political favours in exchange for donations to the agency, but it is important that any suspicions regarding the operation of the fund are eliminated.
The agency was set up by the Anastasiades presidency when Cyprus was in deep recession to financially help students, whose families may have fallen on hard times, to complete their university studies. It was run by Andri Anastasiades as she pleased, and Philippa Karsera-Christodoulides wanted the same regime for her, claiming in the legislature that she was being targeted by Disy which saw no need for naming donors in the 10 years Nicos Anastasiades was president. She may have a point, but this does not mean that the absence of transparency must be maintained indefinitely.
Another argument used by Karsera-Christodoulides against transparency was that disclosure of the names of donors would discourage people from giving money. It is a very weak argument, considering people would be giving money for a very good cause – helping needy students. Why would they demand that their generosity and public spirit be shrouded in secrecy, as was the first lady’s contention? This demand could give rise to mistaken interpretations, the most obvious being that a donor wants something in exchange from the executive for his money.
Transparency would in fact protect the presidency when faced with donors who might have an agenda and seek favours after they have offered money. When everything is out in the open it is much easier for the president or the first lady to tell the donor that his request cannot be satisfied. But when the donations are shrouded in secrecy there is a much bigger risk of them becoming transactional, something we are sure neither the president nor his wife want.
We cannot say what the Supreme Constitutional Court will decide, but perhaps a better solution would be to scrap the Social Support Agency, for which there is no longer any need. The difficult times, which once made it necessary, are in the past and the state fund that supports students has money left over every year, unable to spend all its funds. There is no longer a need for students for the charity of the presidential palace.
Click here to change your cookie preferences