Last week the Cape High Court saw the beginning of a rather unusual case, in which the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa), citing the Promotion of Access to Information Act, seeks to compel the four largest political parties in South Africa to release information about donations they have received.

Idasa, an NGO dedicated to the promotion of democratic norms in this country, has apparently been requesting this information for some time, but without success. Now it is increasing the pressure. The information, incidentally, relates only to donations in cash or kind exceeding R50 000 and, for the purposes of this test case, only for the current calendar year.

Why, one may ask, should such information be made public? Shouldn't donors be able to give without their action being made public? In most cases the answer to the latter question would be "yes", but not in politics, where great power and big money are a very dangerous mix - even more so than in big business.

One can understand why some large contributors to party funds do not like their gifts to be made public. If it's generally known that a large business or high-profile professional person contributes generously to an opposition party's coffers, they may fear that they'll get no more government contracts, appointments or commissions. Or they may fear that open support of a particular party will harm their business or career in some other way. These things may not always be so, but the perception and the fear may be there, and that's enough reason for wanting secrecy.

For their part, the political parties fear that if large potential donors know their gifts will be publicly listed, they may decide not to give. So the donors and the political parties both have their reasons for not wanting to release the information.

These considerations, however, cannot stand up against the need for openness and transparency in public life. Secret funding of political parties is simply another possible source of the corruption that we need to root out. If large donations to political parties and candidates remain secret, when the party or the individual gets elected, some of the subsequent benefits they confer, contracts they award, appointments they make, will inevitably raise the question "Is this a case of pay-back time for someone?"

If large corporations or wealthy individuals want to stand in the corridors of power, waiting for possible rewards or benefits, let them do so - but let everyone know what they are doing. The public in a democracy must not be kept in ignorance of what influences and pressures are being brought to bear on politicians, because the public must pass informed judgement on these things when they exercise their vote.

In seeking to compel the parties to release information about donations received, Idasa is upholding the principles of an open and democratic society. It wants the courts to ensure that in this matter the ideals enshrined in our Constitution are not negated in practice.

With acknowledgement to The Natal Witness.