It could be argued that donations to political parties are in support of a cause and that both sides have a right to confidentiality.

But then we know that there is sometimes nothing innocent about the reason people part with their money, especially when it is in favour of somebody who is in a position to ensure they get something in return.

Thus there will be disappointment at the Cape High Court's decision that political parties should not be compelled to disclose the identities of their private donors, just as there will be no surprise at our parties' unanimous concurrence with the verdict.

In fairness, though, the parties have a point when they argue that disclosure could in some instances rebound on donors, such as by having state contracts withheld from them when they support opposition parties. Equally, businesses could open themselves to commercial risk if it comes to light which parties they support.

But that there is big inherent danger in the practice is undeniable. It is not unique to South Africa either: the suspicions and constant insinuations about oil money's role in the American elections - and the Iraq war - are a particularly apt example of how far it can carry. And let us not forget about the evidence that, back home, has been given in the Shaik trial.

We hope, therefore, that the parties will waste no time setting up a legal mechanism whereby such donations can be monitored, if only among themselves.

The view that it is up to parliament to institute such regulatory action is probably constitutionally valid, even though it comes down to leaving the politicians to police themselves. Still, it holds the contradiction of forfeiting transparency for the sake of democracy.

In the circumstances, the least we can hope for is that they, as our elected representatives, will treat it with due urgency.

With acknowledgements to Philani Mgwaba and Pretoria News.