The mini-drama over a so-called ‘list’ of parliamentarians who purportedly received financial contributions from a particular big business group distracts from one of the most crucial aspects of representative democracy – election campaign financing. But, while the politicians make a ruckus for their individual political gain, the citizenry is aware that this one so-called ‘list’ is but the tip of the iceberg in terms of the nexus of corruption and politics.
This ‘list’ first came to light when a single politician, Opposition Parliamentarian Hon Dayasiri Jayasekara, was found to have received a cash ‘donation’ from a big businessman currently under CID investigation. Like many other politicians, the Hon. Jayasekara seems to have a weak memory when recalling exactly who gave this ‘donation’ and when. Apparently, he had not noticed the signature on the million-rupee cheque!
Now attention has moved on to this ‘list’ of names of politicians who have received similar donations from the same source. The business group in question, while under investigation, has not yet been found ‘guilty’ of any crime. Even if that enterprise is indeed found guilty of any other crime, the giving of a cash donation to a politician is not a crime at all under our current laws.
The giving of financial donations per se is not the issue. It is when money changes hands for purposes of bending of laws and protocols – such as, in the winning of contracts or evading tariffs or avoidance of criminal prosecution or any other irregular action – that such election campaign donations are offensive and a corrupt practice - if not a subversion of our Republic.
Governance is a major function for the good of society. In a democratic Republic, governance is essentially collective and representative, with the system of popular election ensuring that the interests of the people, along with social norms, are paramount.
It is laudable, therefore, for concerned citizens to contribute toward those individuals and political parties that are competing to represent social constituencies in the institutions of governance. The citizens presume that it is those who wish to serve the people in the sphere of governance who are standing to be elected to Government – local, provincial, national. This is the larger, basic social expectation of all politicians.
Citizens are provided the opportunity to periodically vote to elect those politicians, and politicians therefore, need the resources to campaign for votes. The more resources – in terms of cash, skilled campaign personnel and support workers – possessed by politicians, the more successful their campaign and the greater their election prospects.
In this country, however, there is no limit to campaign wealth and, thus, our Democratic Republic does not ensure a level contest field in electoral politics. Thus, who is wealthier in political contest capability wins. The poorer candidate, no matter how representative or how suitable she/he is in terms of policy, loses out.
Popular support – in cash and kind – surrounds all politicians and political parties throughout the country, at local, provincial and national levels. But since there is no set system of recording such financial contributions, there is no legal or political accountability.
Thus, come election time, the primary objective of many politicians is not so much winning popular support through the advocacy of policies. Rather, there is a mad rush to mobilise campaign funds and financial advantages in terms of news media access.
In the decades since the country’s existing political finance regulations were swept aside in 1977, the country’s politics has become awash with a flood of cash – much of it ‘black’ money. Money rules, not policy.
Indeed, politicians are happy not to commit themselves to specific and detailed policies so that they have an open mandate to do as they wish – in accordance with the narrow interests of their campaign financiers rather than of their actual voter constituencies. And no one can know who these financiers are and what narrow interests they push since there is no formal recording of campaign contributions, nor is there any provision for public accountability.
Unlike other mature democracies, Sri Lanka lacks such a legal framework that compels all political donations be formally recorded and made public. It is only when a stringent mechanism that requires such transparency of political finance governs our electoral system can we truly begin to have confidence that our vote will be more effective than those with the money bags behind the scenes.
At present, even a law requiring the declaration of assets of politicians is observed more in the breach. Even if assets are declared, our politicians could have memory lapses about the exact origin of funds. Since political parties are not tax-paying entities, there is no disclosure of their finances and their origin.
What is needed is an exact accounting of all financial contributions, including voluntary provision of commercial services in support of a party or a politician. Ideally, such contributions should be recorded and made public as and when they are made and not at a later date. Already India possesses such laws although there are inadequacies.
Until such concrete structures and norms governing political financing are in place, how can our voters have confidence any more in the mantras of combating corruption so often chanted by our politicos?