Whether you believe the elections will take place or not, in phases or in one go, with the participation of you-know-who or not, one question remains constant. The Beed wonders how, in this current crippling economic scenario, political parties will fund their bids. The split in the Nepali Congress means that we have still another party that needs to be funded, and what with the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority giving our local experts in plumbing and siphoning hell, somehow one gets the feeling that the rules of engagement that funders and parties will follow this time around will be different from the previous elections.

The mechanics of corruption in Nepal-which is a different matter from the motivations for being corrupt-are enabled by one simple fact. The central problem stems from the fact that political parties cannot solicit funds, and businesses or individuals cannot in turn fund parties legally. This, combined with the somewhat overenthusiastically stringent norms laid down by the Election Commission to cap expenses, has meant that political parties as well as people and institutions who have a stake in them-and we should accept that this kind of forwarding of self-interest is part of most democracies-find ingenious new ways of getting money for point A to point B.

The United States, which, as we all realise on an almost daily basis, is the world's most powerful democracy, has been able to legalise campaign financing by legitimising contributions to political parties. To be sure, there are problems here too-exceeding the ceiling, for one-but regulation has been actively present, which is the first thing that matters. Some of you will argue that politics goes beyond mere economics in any country, and into the morality of vote-seekers as promise-sellers. It might not come as a surprise that the Beed disagrees. One feels, and strongly, that handling and regulating elections are as much economic issues as anything else. This is especially vital in a country like ours, where the transactions and expenditure during elections are phenomenal compared to the national GDP and when we have two elections between each Olympic games.

The political parties should realise that there is no shame in admitting openly that they need money to fund their campaigns and that they would like to take a legitimate route. The rhetoric of politics may be about selflessness and austerity, but its practice, even when perfectly honest, remains profoundly dependent on cash. Corporations and individuals should be allowed to create trust funds to fund elections, with a cap set to match a portion of their individual wealth or turnover. And tax laws should allow such expense to be claimed as legitimate expenses.

In such a scenario, transparency can be demanded of political parties through such moves as requiring them to make public the names of donors exceeding a certain amount, or making their financial statements a matter of public record. Political parties can then be audited, and if they do not comply, the Election Commission could be empowered to even debar them from contesting elections. The government is trying to expand the tax net anyway, why shouldn't politicians be part of it. Maybe they don't need to be actually taxed, but why shouldn't the tax authority not keep an eye on them? Not to be snide, but given how keen all political parties are on transparency and good governance, why shouldn't these twin blessings begin at home?

The legitimisation of election funding would do something similar to business, and place tham all on the same footing. So long as the give and take in the business-bureaucrat-politician nexus is not at least partially clarified, there's no hope of anyone but insiders ever understanding the nuts and bolts of how things get done. If the expenses of political parties can be met within the stipulated guidelines, they will not be compelled to bestow favours on special interest groups.

The Beed is wearying of harping on this so often.