The gatekeepers of democracy are rarely lost in one dramatic crash, rather they are lost in a slow, insidious erosion often hardly noticed until it is too late.

Looking at the shocking revelations and allegations that emerged since the Panama Papers, one would realise that the system of checks and balances has been failing us for years.

Human nature being what it is, it would be naïve to assume that power will not in some way and to some extent corrupt. Hence, the need for systems to make those tempted to stick their snout into the trough to fear they stand a good chance of getting caught.

One such measure is the ministerial declaration of assets, introduced, over 20 years ago, one in a series of initiatives aimed at making Cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries ever more accountable and transparent. Yet, over the past few years, it has proved to be a complete farce, just like what candidates say they spend during the electoral campaign and the donations political parties receive.

Bottom line is that, each time an alarm bell goes off and nothing happens, those who abuse realise that the risk of getting caught gets lower and lower and the chances of getting away with it keep getting better.

As things stand, the Prime Minister has discretion on how to deal with breaches, which, it must be pointed out, would have been committed by one of his own, a person he himself would have selected. The reality of the past year is proof enough of this.

Also, the list of assets needs to be updated. Immobile property, bonds and shares are mentioned but recent experience have been very revealing as to how resourceful one can be. Even the value of property needs to be clear and properly revised regularly.

There is no formal mechanism for the declarations to be audited. Could or should the National Audit Office do so as a matter of course, seek clarifications and demand modifications if deemed necessary?

There have been some howlers, from Austin Gatt forgetting his €700,000 account in a Swiss bank to Anton Refalo managing to repay a €830,000 loan with a joint annual income of €45,000. Ninu Zammit and (former Nationalist minister) Michael Falzon admitted to holding secret Swiss bank accounts – the former had $3.2 million – and John Dalli has been vociferously denying claims he has millions stashed away.

Of course, the whole point of the ministerial declaration is not voyeurism: it is meant to give a picture of one’s standard of living so that any sudden unexplainable changes would be noticed and, ideally, acted upon. That is why Prime Minister Joseph Muscat was ill-advised to brush off questions about spending €11,000 on a holiday.

The Opposition has made an end to corruption a cornerstone of its electoral campaign. Simon Busuttil may well live to regret his 2015 decision to ignore Zammit and Falzon’s Swiss accounts merely because they came before “his watch”.

Both leaders, and, indeed, all politicians, must practise what they preach. Fighting corruption should not be a slogan but a fact of life.

One can only hope the elections will mark the end of this slippery slope. The electorate deserves far more respect and a lot less patronising.