In many developing countries, local elections are often marred by vote-buying practices, where candidates pay individuals directly in exchange for their votes. This transactional approach undermines the very foundation of democratic accountability. Once elected, such candidates no longer feel any obligation to represent the needs or aspirations of their constituents. After all, they did not earn their mandate through trust or policy, but by financial coercion. For them, the electorate is not a constituency to serve, but an investment to recoup — often through corruption, embezzlement, and the abuse of public office. The goal becomes not public service, but personal profit; to recover campaign costs and prepare for the next round of vote-buying.
At first glance, the situation in Western democracies appears different, but a closer look reveals a similar underlying distortion. Here, the relationship between the voter and the candidate is often mediated by a powerful third actor: the campaign donor. Electoral campaigns are expensive undertakings. To reach and persuade voters, candidates must spend vast sums on advertising, staff, events, and media coverage. This financial burden cannot be shouldered by most candidates alone. Thus, they become reliant on wealthy donors (individuals, corporations, or interest groups) who provide the necessary funding in exchange for future influence.
While the voter is courted during the campaign, it is often the donor whose interests prevail once the candidate is elected. In many cases, elected officials prioritize the policy agendas of their financial backers; lowering taxes for the ultra-wealthy, weakening regulations, and cutting social programs for the broader population. The average citizen, whose vote was cast in hope of representation, finds themselves sidelined in the very democracy they support.
The situation grows even more dangerous when campaign donors are foreign actors with interests that diverge from or even contradict those of the host nation. In such instances, elected leaders may end up advancing the geopolitical or economic agendas of foreign powers rather than serving their own people. This constitutes a profound betrayal of public trust and national sovereignty.
At first glance, the situation in Western democracies appears different, but a closer look reveals a similar underlying distortion. Here, the relationship between the voter and the candidate is often mediated by a powerful third actor: the campaign donor. Electoral campaigns are expensive undertakings. To reach and persuade voters, candidates must spend vast sums on advertising, staff, events, and media coverage. This financial burden cannot be shouldered by most candidates alone. Thus, they become reliant on wealthy donors (individuals, corporations, or interest groups) who provide the necessary funding in exchange for future influence.
While the voter is courted during the campaign, it is often the donor whose interests prevail once the candidate is elected. In many cases, elected officials prioritize the policy agendas of their financial backers; lowering taxes for the ultra-wealthy, weakening regulations, and cutting social programs for the broader population. The average citizen, whose vote was cast in hope of representation, finds themselves sidelined in the very democracy they support.
The situation grows even more dangerous when campaign donors are foreign actors with interests that diverge from or even contradict those of the host nation. In such instances, elected leaders may end up advancing the geopolitical or economic agendas of foreign powers rather than serving their own people. This constitutes a profound betrayal of public trust and national sovereignty.
Today, this dynamic is glaringly evident in several Western democracies, where certain foreign-aligned billionaires wield disproportionate influence over domestic politics. Of particular concern is the role of powerful donors who secure unwavering allegiance from elected officials. A good example is the case of donors who support Israel and the Israeli state through lavish campaign financing for candidates. The consequences are deeply troubling: legislators who disregard the needs of their own citizens while championing policies that benefit foreign nations — even to the detriment of their own.
This has resulted in a political class increasingly detached from its populace; passing laws that burden ordinary citizens with higher taxes, slash social welfare programs, and divert public funds to subsidize foreign governments or prosecute distant wars. In such a system, democracy is hollowed out. Elections become rituals without substance, and elected offices are occupied not by public servants, but by proxies of the wealthy and powerful.
For democracies, whether in the Global South or the industrialized West, to regain their legitimacy, electoral systems must be insulated from financial manipulation. Transparency in campaign financing, strict limits on donations, and robust enforcement of conflict-of-interest rules are essential. More importantly, the citizens themselves must remain vigilant, demanding that their representatives answer to them — not to financiers, not to foreign interests, and not to the highest bidder.
Only then can democracy live up to its promise: governance by the people, for the people.
This has resulted in a political class increasingly detached from its populace; passing laws that burden ordinary citizens with higher taxes, slash social welfare programs, and divert public funds to subsidize foreign governments or prosecute distant wars. In such a system, democracy is hollowed out. Elections become rituals without substance, and elected offices are occupied not by public servants, but by proxies of the wealthy and powerful.
For democracies, whether in the Global South or the industrialized West, to regain their legitimacy, electoral systems must be insulated from financial manipulation. Transparency in campaign financing, strict limits on donations, and robust enforcement of conflict-of-interest rules are essential. More importantly, the citizens themselves must remain vigilant, demanding that their representatives answer to them — not to financiers, not to foreign interests, and not to the highest bidder.
Only then can democracy live up to its promise: governance by the people, for the people.
Yes, this is also the case AIPAC is doing in the USA democracy.
ReplyDelete