It is a paradox of democracy that while a few politicians are idolised from time to time, politicians are criticised most of the time.

In fact, criticism of politicians is no new thing. When one looks at politicians from the prism of history, criticism is more than justified.

Shakespeare’s King Lear refers to “the scurvy politician” who seems “to see the things thou dost not”. Anatole France was most scathing when he said, “I am not so devoid of all talents as to occupy myself with politics.”

Bribery and corruption have always been associated with those politicians whose hunger for power is not assuaged. In Britain, described by some as ‘the cradle of democracy’, Lord Ashley (later Lord Shaftsbury) successfully won Dorset in l831 after spending £12,000 in public houses and inns for the refreshment of the people – and this was when gin was a penny a glass! The phenomenon has since been manifesting itself in different guises, in different countries, up to the present time, such as Tammany Hall in the USA of the 1860s and mani pulite in Italy of recent times.

All of this explains why dissatisfaction with politics can run deep and why people come to express doubt about the future of the democratic system and its institutions.

It is worth trying to assess how and why things have come to such a pass. On mature reflection, there is insufficient public understanding on how fragile and vulnerable our democratic system is.

To start with, universal suffrage and the principle of one-person-one-vote began to gain recognition only after World War One. In Malta, women won their right to vote after World War Two. There are still some democracies in the early stages of dealing with the electoral mechanics of democracy.

The advent of the party system leaves little room for independent politicians, and controversies that used to take place outside the political parties now take place inside closed party circles.

Thirdly, the party system led to the drawing up of detailed political programmes for presentation to the electorate. This has led to the doctrine that the Party in power has a mandate to implement its Manifesto. This practice has triggered a reaction from many electors who ask, “What are you going to do for me in return for my vote?”

The extensive and all-pervading development of the welfare state has snowballed. Come to think of it, one of the four great freedoms to which the late President Roosevelt aspired was “freedom from want”. In progressive democracies there is no longer a struggle to achieve basic democracy. Our generation has the welfare state as its safety net.

The rapid spread of higher education has equipped people to criticise and question almost everything. Moreover, electors everywhere have far more information about events than ever before. With the advent of the Internet, news is conveyed in seconds to the far corners of the earth and television tells each story vividly. All of this influences the judgement electors make about events and people, including politicians.

All of this also explains why latter-day electorates are more sceptical than in the past and why democratic politics are often under examination.

Scepticism and questioning is healthy – as long as analysis is conducted along the straight and narrow. There is never enough time available for healthy debate. In Malta, the intellectual class seems to lack widespread concern, and to be largely indifferent to the search for an improved political climate, where the common electorate is at once more enlightened and capable of playing a more active and independent role on the political stage.

While active politicians of all parties tend to consider themselves as members of one professional class, where are the countervailing forces that enlighten the electorate about the dangers of too much government and prudent public finance? Who is interested in stimulating public awareness on the unspoken burdens that are building up to threaten the security of future generations as the so-called welfare gap and the national debt reach unprecedented levels? Who speaks on the need to give more independence to the individual from the State and its creeping bureaucracy? And why do politicians place more and more emphasis on economics and speak less and less about people, preferring to focus on the faceless ‘citizen’ instead heads of families with mouths to feed, children to educate and dependants or relatives with problems related to drugs, law and order and the environment in which they have to live?

Taking the long perspective, these are democracy’s teething troubles. Maturity comes with time and experience. Democracy has made some inroads, but there is more to be done.

The one redeeming thought is that the prospects for the future are brighter in areas where democracy has established a firm foothold.

In these areas, the electorate is conscious of its sovereignty and is, moreover, on the qui vive!