One of the side issues thrown up for discussion by the CLICO affair is that of campaign financing of political parties, especially at election time. It is a matter that particularly concerns us as a small democracy.
It neither touches nor concerns the totalitarian regimes, since the freedom to promote a party espousing one’s political views is unknown to such societies; but the freedom to propagate a particular political view is one of the most important freedoms in a democratic state.
And yet it is this freedom that breeds so many problems, because it is of the essence of a democracy that as far as possible the playing field should be level if choice is to be meaningful; and it cannot be meaningful if the message of one side is heard and that of the other is not.
Recent disclosures on both sides of the Atlantic have convinced us of the grave dangers of unbridled freedom of private funders, for there are some companies which will extend the hand of financing for reasons and purposes that have very little to do with public responsibility, and everything to do with actions bordering on the corrupt.
It is remarkable how coincidental has been the conferment of honours in some countries with a sizeable political donation. In some cases, it has been shown that a tariff of some sort has sprung up, with higher donations attracting more prestigious honours.
So several questions arise. A key one is whether one should permit private donations for campaign funding, or whether the state should allocate funds to be given to the political parties for election campaigns while banning all private donations.
The concept of funding political activities is not new. Already we have recognized the necessity for political parties to be permitted to exist and the Annual Estimates contain provision for the political parties to receive a subvention every year.
We also accept that Members of Parliament must service their constituencies and we fund those operations out of the public purse.
It ought to be a short step thereafter to consider funding general election and other election campaigns of political parties.
But we need to consider this matter very carefully, because some will feel very strongly that as good ordinary citizens, they must be allowed to put their money where their mouths are. And corporate citizens, or rather their controllers and directors, may wish to follow suit.
The real problem comes down to one of persuasion, because if we accept that people can be influenced to act in a particular manner by the impact of the message upon their minds and psyche, then money can be used to buy an election; and that we do not ever wish upon a democracy. And then if elections can be bought, what of the public interest where such “election buying” has taken place. Now herein lies a case for action.
And yet we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. We have to examine the facts in a rational way. The current CLICO problem has not unearthed any abuse of electioneering principles by the use of money. According to the evidence so far available, political donations came, so we are told, from the profits made by a bank. As long as we permit campaign contributions, then a donation from profits is acceptable.
Perhaps the greater evil is whether any private funding, even if from legitimate sources, can have an impact upon governmental policy adverse to the public interest. That is a question for legitimate discussion. Even before news of the CLICO collapse, that issue had always raised front burner questions in many democracies.
What the Clico collapse may have done is to refresh the matter at a personal level, which reminds us that the issue is so important that we need to ask the right questions necessary for immediate debate, if not action!
