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 presumes 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, political party machines came into being to draw up suitable programmes, tailor-made to fit citizen 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 danger to the democratic process.

Political parties must have their headquarters apparatchiks, their media and their agents. New campaign techniques such as websites, direct mail, e-mail canvassing and rapid response capabilities – all of which call for modern apparatus and expertise – increase the pressure, and top the bill.

Add to that the running of radio and television stations all the year round, 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 and party fund-raising and from subscriptions. The rest comes from donations. There is no control on the source of such donations, which could be, and very often are, surreptitious and may also come from questionable sources.

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 electorate.

Such interference may not come exclusively from commercial interests. Conceivably, it may ominously come from foreign sources with a dictatorial or a fundamentalist agenda.

It may come from European sources that once nourished tangentopoli, or from sources that once brought Helmut Kohl and Chirac into trouble

Party leaders are understandably nervous about election outcomes – if for no other reason, because they would not know what resources are available to their respective rivals. In any case, their fervent supporters easily persuade them that more needs to be spent.

On each side of the political divide, there is no shortage of ambitious aides who urge more spending on consultancy, opinion polls for self-serving ends.

These voracious demands outrun the available resources. Hence the constant search for donors, and the ones who count are the fat cats.

The escalating fever is by no means an exclusive Maltese phenomenon. It has been manifesting itself in established democracies like the United States and Great Britain.

In the USA it has reached mega-proportions.

This developing situation is making it practically impossible for new competing political parties to emerge, as these have to proceed from small beginnings and cannot easily survive in an unequal context.

Political campaigning is progressively becoming an antithesis to government, and is making it harder to build public support for difficult, long-term policy decisions.

An obsession with fund-raising has become a central feature of an ongoing campaign, and is blurring the lines between campaigning and governing.

Campaigning stokes the fuel of polarisation. It distracts the agencies of government. It devalues politics and politicians. 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 an urgent case for all party finances to be exposed to the light of day, with transparency on sizable donations. There is a case for all parties to publish their audited accounts, for national election spending to be credibly capped, and, if necessary, for State funding.

For years, local politicians paid lip service to the need of report. But the electorate had been short-changed

Unless the spending fever is controlled, things are not likely to improve – and unless they do, something will ultimately 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, out of sheer experience, the party that is fit for government.

[email protected]