Impact Of Political Funding And Non Voters On Democracy

Two Issues that could be argued to be having a negative effect on modern democracies.APA

Introduction

Two of the issues that arguably effect modern democracies are political funding and non voters. Political funding strengthens political parties and political parties may seek entitlement to it. However, it is needed to be determined whether it serves the advancement of democratic values or whether it affects democracy. Another issue is non-voter citizens or low voting turn out, which demonstrates a disconnection between the voters and the political parties. This essay will analyse whether the two issues affect democracy or whether they are the resultants of drawbacks in democracy.

Political funding. One of the issues is that of political funding that occupies a major role in the operation of a modern democracy. Political funding can either serve as a means to electoral result or an end to itself. Money to run a campaign is identified as one the four parts of an election campaign. Campaign money precedes the other elements, which are “the candidate, the issues of the candidates, the campaign organization...” (Janda, Berry, & Goldman, 2007). A donation-driven approach to politics may put the areas of political debate in policy areas; however, does not matter most to the interested high stake holders. This poses challenges to democracy, the values of which is enable citizens exercise the authority of government.

There is so much conflict of interests that arises out of handling political funding. For instance, multinational corporations allegedly donate huge sum of money to political parties to have political access and favourable consideration and policies. There is, therefore, no doubt about their involvement on corruption, which severely affects domestic political system and business model (Cherunilam, 2008). For example, Associated Octel Corporation was fined $12.7 million in the UK, and it was further penalised in the USA for bribing officials of the Governments of Iraq and Indonesia in May 2008 to secure supply contracts of products, including Tetraethyl Lead (TEL), considered highly dangerous compound and as an octane booster mixed with engine fuel (Transparency International UK, 2007). In such situations, the real question is how to make MNCs accountable for the number of high level corruption involving government officials and corporations. The issue of regulating funding political parties has been a challenge to democracy due to the lack of political will. This is demonstrated by the attempts in progress for a few decades to reform political funding. The alternative argument, though, is that a country needs strong political parties and as such funding is required to strengthen them. However, abuse of funding system has led to a disconnect between the voters and the political parties, which have become the least trusted institution in any country (Phillips, 2007). Therefore, it would be too remote to say that there is absence of political conflict of interests, given the alternative argument of parties relying on institutional donors, and is equally unjustified to expect that the parties could separate such donors from their political activities and decisions (Friedman, 2013). Governments have control over economic policy. They will make critical financial decisions that impact financial sectors. It is therefore self evident that there would be relative consensus between the parties that are in favour of donors or policies favouring donors, such as climate regulations, tax rates and exemptions, and similar other decisions. If otherwise, political parties may be exposed to less likelihood of getting donations and therefore there is an apparent possibility of subconscious bias and less chances of politicians removing from their mind such likelihood (Friedman, 2013).

In relevance to the topic, mention is made here of the main legislation that govern election money or funds. It is the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000 sets out restrictions on the donations that could be made to registered political parties (legislation.gov.uk, 2020). There are other legislation as well, for instance Representation of the People Act 1983, which provides for restrictions on individual candidates’ spending at elections. While reading these legislations in view of the current issues, it needs to be determined whether political parties view revenues as a primary means to an electoral end, or they see fundraising activities as an end in itself. It is observed that political strategies and institutional arrangements facilitate shaping outcomes of debates over political finance reform. However, parties even when scandals occupy prominence in issue of such reforms, do not necessarily let go of assured economic gains for possible political payoffs (Scarrow, 2004). There are few drawbacks in the current legislation that enable continuance of reliance of parties on donors, which thereby influences policies and regulations. The complexity of the relevant laws on election spending has amounted to parties breaching regulations, for instance the March 2017 penalty on the Conservatives by the Electoral Commission for breaches of spending law at the 2015 general election and 2014 by-elections. Imprint requirements does not apply to online campaign, which gives way to spread of misinformation. Online spending report is subject to limited regulatory governance. ‘Dark ads’ does not show the origin or the creator, so targets are prone to conflicting information. This gives rise to outside parties’ intrusion in the democratic process of election (Full Fact, 2017).

Non-voter. Another issue is that of non-voter citizens, who are disconnected from the political parties that have elected or which parties that represent the non-voters. They arguably affect modern democracies. In 1997, it was less than 30% turnout in UK general election and it was still less at 40% of the registered electorate abstained in the 2001 UK general election. The change in people's attitudes to general elections is related to extent of the democratic value related with election and voting exercise. In the 2001 election, 55% of abstainers were deliberate abstainers and 45% of them were reportedly unable to vote due to circumstances that claimed to be beyond their control. The latter group was reportedly not committed to democratic system of elections, but were less sceptical of the system than the 55% abstainers, who did not have much faith in governments and also in the value of voting exercise (Johnston & Pattie, 2003).

Low electoral turnout is a recognised problem common in many countries. The extent of its affect on democracy has to be determined based on multiple factors, but it is equally important to also determine whether higher turnout would have made advanced democratic values. The issue about higher turnout is also more to do about relevance of parties where bias in election result is not that large and in not a specific direction. Any of the political parties would benefit from such bias (Lutz & Marsh, 2007). Low electoral turnout also can be demonstrated as a product of drawbacks in democracy or one of its resultants and as such it is democracy that is affecting electoral turnout. For instance, Armin Schäfer, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, claimed that low incomes and less educated voters show lowest participation rate, due to lack of resources, being excluded from social life, and the fear that their voice cannot be heard and change anything. From a democratic viewpoint, it represents a vicious circle (Fock, 2016).

These instances of drawback of democracy, particularly related to voluntary abstainers, self inflicting the values of democracy could be linked with the first issue of inefficient regulation of political funding. For instance, the intrusion of corporations in policy making and strategies though their donations apparently increases the scepticism of the voters. Instances of lack of political efficacy, interest and trust and dissatisfaction with politicians and the political system are major elements that increase the probability of non-voting (Hadjar & Beck, 2010). But, does it mean that compulsory voting will produce lower rate of non-voting? To a certain extent it does produce lower rate, but if analysed from social psychological aspect, such as education as is seen earlier, the result is the same (Hadjar & Beck, 2010). Democratic politics is a competitive as well as a cooperative affair. The blend of shared and conflicting interests may produce political solutions to problems arising from issues affecting democracy (Lever & Poama, 2018). For instance, the regulatory ability to bring a balance between rights of parties to political funding and create a control to regulate them towards ethical and legal policy making will surely bring political and social solutions needed in a democracy. The argument of attaching reason such as non-voters are free riders or similar argument is a way of depoliticising their reasoning or circumstances, as are listed above earlier. The argument that these non-voters do not see any candidate or political parties worth trusting to vote them to elected representative holds more validity. Thus, depoliticising situation of voters, who may find ways of having both conflicting and share interests and risk, may undermine democracy. (Lever & Poama, 2018).

Conclusion

Both the issues could be stated to be factors that affect democracy and at the same time could be termed as a result of flaws in democracy. There has to be a balanced solution that could only be brought about through a political will. Both of these issues occupies significant place in advancing democratic values and foundation.

Bibliography

• Cherunilam. (2008). International Economics . Tata McGraw-Hill.
• Electoral Reform Society. (2019, September 30). Fair and Free – Ensuring the Integrity of Elections in the UK. Retrieved March 20, 2020, from Electoral Reform Society: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/parliamentary-briefings/fair-and-free-ensuring-the-integrity-of-elections-in-the-uk/
• Fock, A. (2016). After Equality: Why a Decreasing Turnout Harms Democracy (Armin Schäfer: Der Verlust politischer Gleichheit: Warum die sinkende Wahlbeteiligung der Demokratie schadet. Intergenerational Justice Review , 2 (1), 27-29.
• Friedman, B. (2013). Democracy Ltd: How Money and Donations have Corrupted British Politics. Oneworld Publications.
• Full Fact. (2017, May 10). Democratic deficit? The rules on election spending. Retrieved March 20, 2020, from Full Fact: https://fullfact.org/law/election-spending-rules-conservatives-electoral-commission/
• Hadjar, A., & Beck, M. (2010). Who does not participate in elections in Europe and why is this? A multilevel analysis of social mechanisms behind non-voting. European Societies , 12 (4), 521-542.
• Janda, K., Berry, J., & Goldman, J. (2007). The challenge of democracy: Government in America. Cengage Learning.
• Johnston, R., & Pattie, C. (2003). The growing problem of electoral turnout in Britain? voluntary and involuntary non‐voters in 2001. Representation , 40 (1), 30-43.
• legislation.gov.uk. (2020). Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Retrieved March 20, 2020, from legislation.gov.uk: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/introduction