Who says so, you may well ask. State resources are sometimes exclusively thought of as financial, including funding streams and the government budget and assets. This is a logical notion but how many of us are aware that there are many forms of state resources which can be used to support, or abused to undermine, democratic governance?

Take institutional resources, for example. These could take the form of non-monetary material and personnel resources available to the state, including publicly-owned media and other communication tools. Or regulatory sources, that is the mandate to pass laws and regulations that allow or prohibit behaviour in the polity.

This regulatory prerogative can regard anything from the criminal code to the order in which candidates should appear on the ballot paper. This would naturally entail enforcement resources.

In themselves, these resources have no positive or negative value, though, through their application, they can easily acquire either (or both). Any state must, of course, have access to resources to develop the country and implement necessary reforms. A state without resources lacks both the capacity to fulfil its necessary tasks and confidence of the public.

But they can also be abused by those who have access to them to ensure that their continued access to these resources is not threatened.

The abuse of state resources is increasingly becoming a topic acknowledged as a serious threat to democracy in our country.

All our past governments had, in one way or another, used their incumbency to further their chances for re-election. This was to be expected and, to some extent, we may also need to accept it. But we must ponder at what point ‘harmless’ politicking turns into destructive abuse of power and why politicians engage in the latter behaviour while others do not.

More and more, we are witnessing a winner-takes-all approach to politics and to the way our country is run. Who will allay our fears that state resources are being abused as activities aimed at political gains in one form or another? I am referring to a different form of abuse, distinct from regular forms of corruption if by that term we mean self-enrichment.

To give a practical example, if a government minister misuses money from his/her budget to siphon off to his/her political party through disguised legitimate channels, that is an abuse of state resources; whereas if the same minister puts the money in his or her pocket, that is self-enriching corruption. While both these types of activities are detrimental to the public good, the former is arguably more politically damaging since it threatens to undermine democratic politics.

For too long now, we have been seeing activities contributing to a public perception of a lack of distinction between the state and the governing party as well as between official and party functions of public officials.

We should forbid officials from issuing propaganda about public works and other achievements during election campaigns- Mark Said

Apart from the respective recommendations by the standards commissioner, for example, when are we going to have an express ban on activities that may indirectly benefit the incumbent by, for example, advertising the success of ministries or other state agencies?

Why should we not have a constitutional provision forbidding officials from issuing propaganda about public works and other achievements during election campaigns? These bans would be intended to deny the incumbent party any unfair advantage over its competitors.

What assurance do we have that high people in power are not abusing our enforcement resources to ensure that more than a single high-profile official is never brought to justice for past abuses of public office and other related criminal offences?

And what peace of mind can be afforded to us that not one individual closely associated with the ruling party in commercial and political activities is given the ‘untouchable’ status and left to roam free above the law, here and abroad, and evade the claws of justice?

How can it be strongly denied that there is no abuse of state-run or state-controlled media, including official government websites and social media accounts, to promote incumbents, disparage opponents or otherwise unfairly influence voters?

How can we be not concerned that the fundamental freedoms of information, speech and the press do not always extend to our national broadcasting services even while we passionately extol our strongly established democratic traditions?

How can it be all right that the government is demonstrating that it regards broadcasting rights as a privilege not to be extended to all who might claim access to them?

Societal norms and standards to a large extent determine what is and what is not seen as acceptable conduct. We have had the NAO, the ombudsman and the standards commissioner flagging instances of misuse or abuse of state resources.

Civil society groups and media outlets have been playing an important role in echoing popular opinion in the area of political behaviour, bringing to the fore how the abuse of state resources is not only a threat to democracy but also a waste of public resources, as such spending does not form part of carefully thought out plans on societal needs and cost-effective implementation.

We have to rein in the abuse of administrative resources, whether material, human, regulatory, budgetary, media-related or legislative because, otherwise, if left rampant, it is destined to haunt the basic responsibilities of government.

The abuse of state resources can permanently erode public confidence in the democratic process and undermine the ability of our government to serve its citizens.