Pluralism in broadcasting has exposed the Maltese electorate to an unprecedented bombardment that shows no sign of interruption. If anything, it is bound to intensify. The alchemy of electronics and satellite communications will further open up the world to every Maltese viewer who can afford to install a satellite dish.

In many ways, this could enlighten and enrich the average elector, giving him or her a wider choice of viewing and listening and, in turn, enabling the elector to make up his own or her own mind when duty calls at the ballot box.

There are, however, two sides to every coin. Science and technology have not merely enriched the latter-day electorate. It has also provided opportunities to various categories with vested interests in the manipulation of public opinion.

Political pollution

Whereas parliamentary democracy, even market democracy, demands an active, wide-awake electorate, the political process is polluted by the activities of monied and other hidden interests, some of whom control the media, lobby the party machines and members of parliament, and use pressure groups who operate wheels within wheels to shepherd whole segments of the electorate in and out of pens designed specifically for sheepish voters.

These hidden interests resort to all sorts of formula involving experts, tame media hacks, politicians, men from the ministry, and know-alls. All of this explains the power of hidden persuaders with the ability of frustrating modern democracy.

Viewed from this perspective, the threat to the growing inadequacy of representative democracy emerges with all its disturbing features.

It has so often been pointed out that, to hold an election every few years is a highly imprecise way of expressing electoral opinion. The voter has to consider a large number of issues, at widely separated points in time, and the chosen MP will not, in fact, represent the voters on all these issues. The voter has little or no control over his ‘representatives’ in between elections.

The new politics

The agenda of politics has changed dramatically since the end of the confrontation between communism and pluralism. The emergence of the market system has ended the debate as to which of the two incompatible systems of politics and economics is to prevail.

What is left of the agenda has to do with economic management, the direction of public spending and so on. The new politics is all about detail, and most of it has to do with the occupation of the middle ground.

It has been said that this provides the ideal territory for the freebooter of the modern political world – the lobbyist.

The increase in wealth, the progress in education and the explosion of information technology all militates in favour of the lobbyist. The latter’s profession is to influence government and parliament on behalf of the special interests who, incidentally, command more money than ever before.

The computer, the fax machine, and all the other electronic gadgets and other paraphernalia provide the lobbyist with an armoury of persuasion.

At the worst of times, the power of lobbyists could amount to outright corruption. But, even when it is not so bad, it can make representative democracy seem increasingly inadequate.

The thinking voter

Irritated at seeing his control over his representatives diminishing, the thinking voter will be even angrier once he discovers how much influence the special-interest lobbyists are now able to wield in the political scenario.

When this happens, an interloper is seen to insert himself or herself into the democratic process.

The situation could be even more ominous if hidden foreign influence could somehow be brought to bear to play havoc with the freely-expressed will of the electorate.

It is for this reason that the funding of political parties should be exposed to democratic scrutiny and control.

This is a concern that has been addressed, with varying degrees of success in other democracies.

It is a concern raised by the Malta Chamber of Commerce, way back in 1994, with it submitted its views to a parliamentary select committee on “The Financing and Accounting of Political Parties and Candidates”.

That committee did not perhaps go far enough with its ultimate proposals. In any case, the committee’s report seems to have withered on the vine and the issue of democratic control on the finances of local political parties continues to be unresolved.

The uncontested sovereignty of the electorate is the keystone of the arch in the democratic edifice.

In the State of Malta, democracy has ominous chinks in its armour, and its institutions are dangerously exposed to the ravages of hidden persuaders.

Democratically-oriented Maltese politicians of all hues pay lip-service to the time-honoured dictum that “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. Yet, this threat has not been adequately addressed.

[email protected]