All good democrats the world over believe that “democracy” is a system of government of the people, by the people, for the people. The system ensures that electors decide, by means of a free and unfettered vote, who is to be entrusted with the administration of their national affairs, and who is to play the role of watchdog from the opposition benches.

By the process of evolution, the political party machines came into being, to draw up suitable programmes, tailor-made to fit the citizens’ needs, and to mobilise the necessary support for the competing parties.

These two functions cost money. Winning power is a coveted prize, and the more it is coveted, the bigger the expense. Expenditure by political parties has soared to the point of embarrassment, and has the potential of running out of control, posing a real danger to the democratic process.

Increasing pressure

Political parties must have their headquarters and their apparatchiks, their media and their supporting networks across the country. New campaign techniques such as direct mail, websites, telephone and email canvassing and rapid response capabilities – all of which call for modern apparatus – increase the pressure and the bill. Add to that the running of radio and television stations, now up and running fast in Malta, and one can make a mental estimate of the needs of local political parties.

The respective party media rely heavily on advertising revenue. Other income comes from business initiatives, from party fund-raising and from membership subscriptions. The rest has to come from donations. There is no control on the source of such donations which can be, and very often are, surreptitious and may also come from questionable sources.

Peril

This is where democracy faces peril. It makes a mockery of democracy if faceless and hidden vested interests throw in their weight to interfere with the free exercise of choice by the elect-orate.

Such interference may not only come from commercial interests. It could conceivably come – ominously – from

foreign sources with a fundamentalist or dictatorial agenda.

It may also come from the sort of European sources that gave rise, in the past, to the Kohl, Chirac or Tangentopoli scandals.

Party leaders are understandably nervous about election outcomes – if for no other reason because they will not know what resources are available to their respective rivals. In any case, they are easily persuaded by their

fervent supporters that more needs to be spent.

There is no shortage of ambitious aides on both sides of the political divide who urge more spending on

consultancies, opinion polls and self-serving ends.

Voracious demands

These voracious demands outrun the available resources and the political parties run into debt. Hence the constant search for donors – and the ones who count are, usually, fat cats.

The escalating fever is by no means an exclusive Maltese phenomenon. It is manifesting itself in established democracies like Great Britain and the United States. Right now, the police are hard at it conducting criminal investigations arising from a sizzling “cash for peerages” row. Potentially, this could implicate people associated with the two major parties in the House of Commons.

No so long ago, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was moaning on Breakfast with Frost that his party needed as much as Lm25 million a year to meet its running costs and expenditure by political parties in the US has reached mega-proportions.

Antithesis to government

A recent study by the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution (The permanent Campaign and its Future by Norman Ornsten and Thomas Mann) argued that political campaigning is increasingly becoming an antithesis to government, and is making it harder to build public

support for difficult, long-term policy decisions.

Campaigning, by its very nature, stokes the fires of political polarisation. It distracts the agencies of government. It devalues politics and politicians and the electorate either loses its appetite for participation in the democratic process or resolves to opt for change by getting rid of the political regime that happens to be in office.

Unless all our politicians descend from Cloud Nine and plant their feet firmly on the ground, there is the danger of democracy losing its way as politicians miss the wood for the trees.

There is a case for all party funds to be exposed to the light of day, with transparency on sizeable donations. There is a case for all parties to publish their accounts, for national election spending to be credibly capped and, if necessary, for State funding.

Unless the spending fever is controlled, Maltese politics are not likely to be conducted with due calm. Unless they are, something will have to give.

It may well be that an “electoral revolt” will put matters right. After all, the average democratic electorate has a way of pinpointing the party that is fit for safe government.

[email protected]