Friday 29 Mar 2024
By
main news image

“There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember what the second one is.” — Mark Hanna, 19th-century tycoon and Republican Party fundraiser

 

AT a time when the whole world is concerned over the role of big money in politics and more and more people are demanding that campaign financing be regulated, the formation of a national consultative committee on political financing by the government could not have been more apt and welcome.

However, just like almost anything that has come from the government in recent times, many Malaysians are sceptical, and even cynical, about the timing and objectives of such a proposal. This is only to be expected, as the government is currently facing a serious trust deficit problem.

We all want democracy. But modern democracy is not cheap. It comes with a pretty pricey tag. It is common knowledge that modern political campaigns need a lot of funds and resources to organise, operate and manage. Despite cap rules on election spending, it is an open secret that the money political parties and candidates spend on any election campaign invariably far exceeds the cap.

No one understands this better than Mark Hanna, whom many describe as the inventor of the modern political campaign. A mining tycoon and Republican Party fundraiser, Hanna was widely credited as the mastermind who helped William McKinley win the US presidential election in 1896.

Hanna once said, “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is.” This short statement pretty much sums up the inseparable relationship between money and politics. Thus, in many countries that practise the democratic election system, political contributions or donations are legal and regulated.

However, the pertinent question is why would those who have the financial resources, be they individuals or groups, so generously donate funds to support a candidate or political party? Of course, there are donors who do so for the best of intentions, for genuinely altruistic or ideological reasons. But there is also no shortage of donors who contribute for other reasons.

Since the government regulates industries and awards contracts, many businesses have a strong interest in its actions as billions of dollars are at stake. If business chieftains believe they can realise a higher return on investment by spending money on political activities than on investing in a new plant or research, they will do so.

Likewise, labour unions, trade associations and a wide variety of other special interest groups have also proved to be very interested in influencing government policy and to participate actively in attempting to do so. In other words, this is yet another democratic norm.

It was James Madison, the father of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, who first pointed out that there will always be factions or special interest groups in any democratic society. In Federalist No 10, he highlights the dangers of factions or special interest groups to a democratic society.

He warned that if these special interest groups are not controlled, the democratic political system would soon succumb to their political and economic interests. Given the chance, they would use all available means to maximise the benefits for their own interests at the expense of others and the integrity of government institutions.

Madison noted that, as such, one of the over-riding roles of a government is to protect the public interest and private ownership from being violated by these special interest groups.

Safeguarding and protecting the public interest and private ownership from these groups should rightly be the ultimate objective of the proposed national consultative committee on political financing.

The reforms that have been, and will be, proposed for consideration will invariably address all-too-familiar issues: campaign finance reform, term limits, public financing disclosure, and so on. All contributions or donations flowing into the kitties of the political parties and politicians should be properly regulated, audited and scrutinised.

However, despite the better-late-than-never formation of the committee, there are lingering questions on the minds of many Malaysians. Will these reforms be accepted by the government? If accepted, will they be implemented without fear or favour?

Again, it all boils down to one question: Will any of the reforms address the root problem of trust deficit?


Khaw Veon Szu, a former executive director of a local think tank, is a practising lawyer. The opinions expressed in this article are his own.

 

This article first appeared in Opinion, digitaledge Weekly, on August 24 - 30, 2015.

      Print
      Text Size
      Share