Jamaicans must be on the lookout for the political fudge.

For if we are not wary, after the current obligatory wringing of the hands and the political gains for the side that now holds the aces, we may end with relatively little. All the talk about political finance reform will be a sham.

In that regard, this newspaper intends to watch, and follow closely, what appears to be subtle shifts in emphases in the current debate on the Trafigura affair and the calls it has triggered for the auditing of the finances of political parties and the public disclosure of financial contributors.

Clearly, the public remains in a quandary about what exactly the Dutch commodity traders, Trafigura Beheer, was doing when it channelled more than 400,000 euros, or J$31 million, to an account controlled by officials of the ruling People's National Party (PNP), including the former general secretary and information minister, Colin Campbell, who has been forced to resign.

Mr. Campbell and his party initially said it was a political contribution, but Trafigura then said it was payment for services, before amending its statement to imply that it was really a contribution. The conjecture is that that 'gift' was handled in a fashion to hide it from European regulators. On the other hand, it may have been a bribe to maintain its deal to trade oil Jamaica buys from Nigeria on concessionary terms, or just to have influence in the Government.

But whatever Trafigura's motive, which has caused particular offence because it is by a foreign company, it has dramatically alerted us to the danger of those with money, local or foreign, being able to treat political power as a commodity that is available to the highest bidder. Fund the party and not worry about the sweat, literal and figurative, of the hustings.

But as serious thinkers and discerning persons are aware, this, ultimately, is a diminution of democracy; the relegation of ordinary folk, with deep pockets, to margins. We should not have it.

We, therefore, should be on the watch for those arguments which claim that transparency will drive 'legitimate' money away from politics and/or drive parties and their donors into subterfuge to bypass regulations. These are the arguments, when they are unyielding in their fame, of persons whose real motive is likely to be the maintenance of the status quo.

The greater danger is not of fleeing legitimate donors, but that if we remain as we are, the shadow and virulent will appropriate the process and do vile things to our democracy. When there are clear rules, people who are concerned about decency in governance will continue to give, based on conscience and the quality of policy.

In the event, a fall in contributions to the parties may not be a bad thing. They may be forced to use campaigns that rely less on razzmatazz and more on issue. And regular supporters may be able to win back the souls of the organisations.

Perhaps there are those who would prefer to delay reforms, hoping to take advantage of existing funding arrangements. That would not be good. In that regard, it is important that the legislature begin debate on Mr. Abe Dabdoub's bill, which would not do violence to any suggestion by the proposed Electoral Commission.