Parties must be rescued
13 July 2009
One of the thorny issues we are currently debating is the public funding of the political parties. Given the grim financial situation that threatens the very survival of our political parties, this issue calls for debate and deliberation that go a little easier on the nitty-gritty of laws. If this issue gets caught up in the labyrinth of rigid, often subjective, interpretations of acts, the two parties will continue to limp along, and with them, our fledgling democracy.
Democracy comes with costs, and supporting dying political parties is one of them. We will be guilty of double standards if we say that democracy must succeed but not necessarily the parties. We know that the parties have hit the end of the road after trying many desperate measures to stay up and running. “Let the dying parties die and new ones come” cannot be the answer when we know full well that even new parties may not survive on membership fees and donations.
If the public funding does not come through, our political parties might be tempted to take plutocratic donations from rich interest groups. Plutocracy is the lowest common denominator that a democracy can stoop to. Therefore, our choice should be either grassroots contributions or public financing.
The good news is that we would not be the first democracy in the world to resort to public financing of political parties. Many democracies have done that with success.
However, it is not a foolproof mechanism in itself. It should not mean pumping the state money directly into party coffers. Issues like allocation, amount, accountability and future implications need to be debated. How do we regulate it?
First, it is important to put in place a stringent mechanism to prevent corruption and misuse of the fund. How do we ensure that the money given to cover operation and administrative costs does not get hijacked?
Second, the state funding should only come as a subsidy, an interim measure to rescue the parties. Otherwise, the political system might turn into another bureaucracy of a sort – fully operating on the state fund and one step apart from the masses. All citizens should express their democratic rights not only by voting, but also by belonging to a party of their choice and contributing to the party fund.
More importantly, the public funding should not be used to strengthen the present players at the cost of future entrants. Clear provisions should be made for the entry of new parties and a level playing field for all parties, old and new, on an equal financial footing.
It would be unadvisable for the National Assembly to decide the amount of the public fund. It could lead to unfair or unbalanced allocation. It should be left for an independent body like the Election Commission to fix the amount and maintain the accounts like in the case of public campaign financing.
(
Loading ...
Comments
3 Responses to “Parties must be rescued”
Leave your comment
Loading ...Zakar for Thursday September 02 2010
th Day of the th Month - Year
Auspicious for:
Inauspicious for:
Recently Updated
- Nganglam needs the same favours
- Yangphel open archery tournament in the quarters
- Meet the wicked lady of Bhutanese films
- From dung to clean energy
- Contractors appeal to PM to solve stone shortage crisis
- Villagers cry foul of farm road alignment
- Tor Jap – hurling ritual cakes
- PTC teachers need professional incentives
- Tudors win easy over Aspens
- 136 power tillers distributed
Popular Articles
- Building and selling skills (535)
- Coming of the new God (270)
- Bhutan’s GDP growth up (80)
- Archery range still threatens lives (55)
- In peace, the King sleeps (40)
- First Bhutanese to run world-class marathon (378)
- Bhutan runs NY marathon (333)
- Burning a mountain with a single thought (203)
- Buddhas and Bars (159)
- Of those 6 months in Phuenthsoling (51)
Archives
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jun | Aug » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Like all things in Bhutan, it article is very abstract.
“The good news is that we would not be the first democracy in the world to resort to public financing of political parties. Many democracies have done that with success.” =>What are those democracies?
“Let the dying parties die and new ones come” cannot be the answer when we know full well that even new parties may not survive on membership fees and donations.=>What is the new parties come with better policies aiming at improving imployment and living standard instead of focusing on banning things and glorfying the politicians themselves with patangs and kabneys? Then people may contribute to the party generous. Right now I don’t want to denote a Nu. to any party because they havent done anything that motivate me to do so. All DPT has done is at best keep the status quo. We didnt become democarcy to maintain what we had but to go further.
Dear Editor,
I hope ‘unadivisable’ in the first sentence of the last paragraph is an inadvertent typo.
Even if it’s not a typo, I know how at times confusing it is. We really need to check and re-check and confirm if it’s ‘un’ or ‘in’ that begins an opposite, especially when there is no other word, for instance, ‘slow’ for ‘fast’ as against ‘polite’ and ‘rude’ or impolite, not ‘unpolite’.
Thank you.
Come on give us a break … ET Tu Editor saab …. SO much for the Independent Voice and all that hollow Jazz …