Author: Muhammad Dawood Yousufi Eshaqzahi
Islam and Democracy (Part 6)
3. Financing Electoral Campaigns
To gain a proper understanding of this issue, consider the following example: During the 1952 United States presidential election, the country’s two major political parties each spent nearly $100 million on their campaigns. By 1960, this figure had risen to approximately $160 million.[1]
Today, each presidential candidate must raise approximately $20 million merely to launch an electoral campaign. The necessity of securing such enormous financial resources compels many prospective candidates to withdraw from the race because they are unable to meet these financial requirements. Individuals who are otherwise qualified to run for office must first secure substantial financial backing to gain the approval of their political party and become one of its official candidates. Only then can they benefit from government campaign assistance, which amounts to nearly $60 million. [2]
The cost of elections at the state and municipal levels follows a similar pattern. For example, in 1929, the cost of the municipal election in New York City exceeded $2 million, averaging $2.26 per vote. By contrast, the city of Salt Lake City recorded the lowest electoral cost, with approximately $0.10 spent per vote.
In Britain during the 1950s, every candidate was required to deposit £150 before participating in an election. If a candidate failed to obtain at least one-eighth (1/8) of the total votes cast, the entire deposit was forfeited.
At that time, an ordinary laborer had to work approximately five to six months to earn such an amount. Consequently, individuals with limited financial means were effectively excluded from candidacy and could scarcely imagine participating in the electoral process. Even if they managed to secure the required deposit, two major obstacles still remained before them:
A. Success depended not merely on the victory of a single capable candidate in one constituency. Rather, a political party had to nominate candidates throughout the country in order to secure a significant number of parliamentary seats. Since £150 had to be paid for each candidate, smaller parties were unable to field candidates in every constituency or realistically hope for electoral success and meaningful political influence.
B. Even if sufficient funds were available to cover the candidacy deposits for all nominees, the cost of campaign advertising and promotion remained an even greater financial burden. Campaign expenditures frequently exceeded the registration costs themselves, consuming vast sums of money and placing immense financial pressure on candidates and political parties alike.
Today, under the prevailing democratic model, all eligible citizens are entitled to participate in elections, and broad voter participation is considered essential. Consequently, extensive campaign activities accompanied by enormous financial expenditures have become indispensable. In other words, if the people are truly to govern, the electorate must be expanded. Yet this broader participation has significantly increased the cost of elections, thereby raising the barriers to political participation. This mode of conducting elections has become one of the principal factors limiting widespread public involvement in governance. As a result, voting and participation in elections no longer represent the hopeful avenue through which people confidently envision shaping their future.
4. Electoral Advertising and Campaigning
Once candidates have been officially nominated, the campaign period begins. Electoral campaigning often increases public confusion and uncertainty by blurring the distinction between truth and falsehood. Numerous promises are made to the electorate, yet only a small portion of them are ultimately fulfilled, while most remain unkept, fading into oblivion amid broken promises and injustice.
Candidates tend to focus on issues that attract public attention and appeal to voters while avoiding subjects likely to provoke negative reactions. For example, for many years candidates discussed solutions to the national budget deficit. However, during the 1996 U.S. presidential election, because the public had grown weary of the issue, candidates deliberately avoided addressing it, despite the fact that the federal budget remained America’s most significant economic challenge.
Discussing issues that appeal to public opinion is often presented as evidence of respect for the popular will or the sovereignty of the people. However, genuine popular sovereignty cannot mean allowing politicians to manipulate public aspirations merely as instruments for achieving political objectives.
Regardless of how much politicians claim to consider the people’s wishes during their campaigns, there often comes a time after victory when many of those promises are neglected or abandoned. Furthermore, society is composed of diverse groups with differing interests and priorities. Consequently, the issues presented as representing the public’s demands are often limited in number, making it relatively easy for politicians to manipulate or exploit them through political maneuvering.
It is therefore unsurprising that candidates frequently alter their positions after winning elections. A notable example is Tony Blair, leader of the British Labour Party. While his party was in opposition and lacked governmental authority, Blair criticized the government’s trade union legislation, describing it as disgraceful, undemocratic, and contrary to the interests of workers. Yet after his party assumed power, when asked whether the same legislation would remain in force, he replied, “Without doubt… it is a logical measure.”
Another example of changing political positions for reasons of political interest occurred during the 1970 United States presidential election. During the Republican primary elections, Richard Nixon adopted positions associated with the political right in order to secure his party’s nomination. However, during the general election, he shifted toward more moderate or left-leaning positions.
Similarly, in 1988, Republican Senator Jack Kemp mocked his fellow Republican Senator Bob Dole, remarking: “When Dole talks about the future, keep an eye on your wallet lest he steal it.” He also joked that when Dole’s library burned down, he lost the only two books it contained, adding humorously that Dole had not yet finished coloring the second one. Yet in 1996, when Bob Dole became the Republican nominee for president and Kemp was selected as his vice-presidential running mate, Kemp declared: “It is the greatest honor of my life to be asked to join and work alongside this great American hero.”
The outcome of these developments is that, once the electoral campaigns conclude, citizens proceed to cast their votes.
The enormous, unrestricted, and ever-expanding financial requirements of electoral campaigning demonstrate, according to this perspective, that ordinary citizens are unable to participate directly in governance or exercise genuine and effective control over political authority.
To be continued…
[1]. The System of Government in the United States, p. 14.
[2]. Al-Arabi (Kuwait), No. 455, October 1996, p. 20.
