Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Having unexpectedly found themselves as part of the ruling coalition in Britain,the Liberal Democrats have been aggressively pursuing their agenda for electoral reform. So far,their efforts have yielded very meagre returns. For instance,their demand for an alternative vote,to bring a measure of proportional representation,was wisely rejected in a referendum. Nonetheless,the detailed conversation begun in Britain about elections and parliamentary representation is valuable for democracies in the throes of efforts to make their elections more representative and transparent. The draft report of the committee on standards in public life on state funding of elections is,therefore,significant.
The committee,tasked with advising the British government on ethical standards in public life,is expected to suggest a cap on individual donations to political parties and a measure of state compensation to parties. One suggestion is political parties be given 3 pounds per vote won in an election. The two suggestions go to the heart of the public concern about financing of elections big donations,even if publicly disclosed,invite suspicions of lobbying and quid pro quo. And the economics of fighting elections,in almost every democracy,is perceived to be a barrier to new entrants without a well-oiled campaign finance machine. Given that politicians worldwide are put on the defensive on the issue of campaign finance,the demand for reform is voiced by them in equal measure. Just as voters feel that funding reform will yield cleaner elections,politicians are aware reform will retrieve their credibility. In addition,some measure of state funding is often also recommended as it would oblige parties to be more publicly accountable in terms of finances and internal democracy.
