THE CAMPAIGN for the presidential elections officially started yesterday. It unofficially began in September, when candidates started holding regular new conferences, touring the country, advertising their promises and conducting debates, through their campaign officials.
The only reason there is an official start is because of the law, which limits the campaign period to 40 days before the election and sets certain conditions. No candidate is allowed to buy more than a total of 100 minutes of advertising time on television and 60 minutes on radio during this period.
This was why we were bombarded with campaign messages by radio and television in the seven days leading up to yesterday – there were no restrictions on air-time. According to Politis’ monitoring, on Monday alone President Papadopoulos had 27 minutes of advertising on CyBC’s Trito station, Ioannis Kasoulides had seven and Demetris Christofias one. There was no data about television advertising but Papadopoulos’ rivals were convinced that the president’s campaign team had spent something between €270,000 and €340,000 on TV and radio advertising in the week before the start of the official campaign.
Papadopoulos and his lieutenants disingenuously claimed that, unlike the other candidates, he was not using billboards for his campaign, but as a Christofias’ lieutenant pointed out, these were a much cheaper advertising medium. His opponents have called on Papadopoulos to reveal how much he has spent on advertising in the last week but it is unlikely they will get an answer.
The amount spent by each candidate should not be the issue. It is a fallacy to think that laws which restrict TV and radio advertising during the 40 days leading up to the elections ensure a level playing field. It does not, because a candidate with cash can spend big amounts on newspaper advertising, billboards, flyers and gatherings – on which there are no legal restrictions.
If politicians genuinely wanted transparency, they would have passed a law obliging every candidate to publish the names of all contributors to their campaigns. This might restrict a candidate’s ability to raise funds but it would also prevent deals being struck and favours being done for donors by the successful candidate.
In the last election, Papadopoulos’ campaign received £50,000 from a UK-based Ukrainian company – voters had a right to know about this, but found out several years later. Constituents have a right to know who the contributors are to each candidate’s campaign.
This is unlikely to ever happen because all the political parties are intent on hiding the identity of their fund contributors. Several months ago the government did draft legislation that would force political parties to publish accounts of how they spent their money and DISY and AKEL – the backers of Kasoulides and Christofias respectively – have been avoiding discussing it.
This prevarication was used against the two parties by the president’s camp on Tuesday, but the president is no better in this respect. Why did the government not draft legislation making presidential candidates publish the names of their campaign donors?
The truth is that the entire political establishment is opposed to this type of transparency and anything said to the contrary is simply platitudes aimed at deceiving the public.
