JULY 6 — It has been a bad couple of weeks for the reputation of political advisors in Europe, with two of the continent’s most high-profile statesmen finding themselves in hot water as a result of ill-advised strategic relationships with unsavoury characters.

In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron has been forced to apologise for his close personal involvement with Andy Coulson, who towards the end of June was found guilty of conspiring to hack into the mobile phones of celebrities during his time as editor of the now-defunct News of the World tabloid newspaper.

Even though Coulson was already heavily linked with dubious practices during his time at the News of the World, Cameron saw it fit to appoint him as his Conservative Party’s director of communications in 2007, with Coulson going on to play a pivotal role in Cameron’s ultimately successful attempt to return his party to power in the 2010 General Election.

After subsequently spending nearly a year as the highest-paid special advisor employed by the new coalition government, Coulson was forced to resign in 2011 when it became apparent that his complicated past was preparing to come back to haunt him.

In hindsight, appointing a man who has been found guilty of hacking phones to manage the government’s media relations strategy seems foolish to say the least, and Cameron was in no mood to make excuses or support his former friend following Coulson’s conviction, simply stating: “I am extremely sorry that I employed him. It was the wrong decision and I am very clear about that.”

An even more dramatic scenario is unfolding in France, where former president Nicolas Sarkozy — who had been intending to run a campaign for re-election in 2017 — has this week been detained by police and formally charged with “influence peddling” after his relationship with former advisor Patrick Buisson turned sour.

The pair used to be firm allies, with the charismatic Sarkozy publicly crediting his friend as one of the chief factors behind his rise to the top of French political pile following his victory in the 2007 presidential elections.

However, it has now transpired that all along Buisson was secretly making tape recordings of Sarkozy’s private and intimate conversations… tapes which have now mysteriously emerged and are being used against him.

The bizarre story’s brief outline is that Sarkozy has been accused of attempting to bribe a judge to reveal information about an investigation into allegations that he received illegal campaign funding from former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

It’s a shadowy case and the nature of the evidence against Sarkozy remains unclear, with Buisson’s tapes possibly playing no part at all — the tapes that have been published so far were relatively harmless, providing no real bombshells.

Either way, it’s obvious that — like Cameron across the Channel — Sarkozy made a very bad choice of friends when he placed his trust in the manipulative Buisson.

These two stories reveal an intriguing yet rarely discussed aspect of modern democracy: the question of where lies the power behind the power.

Former Editor of the News of the World Andy Coulson arrives for the sentencing at the Old Bailey court house in London, July 4, 2014. — Reuters pic

Although there are obviously many secret alliances, negotiations and general political manoeuvring always at play, the heads of elected governments are largely accountable to voters and held responsible for their actions.

Ultimately, decisions over taxes, welfare, domestic and foreign policy and so on are made by political leaders who have been voted into power by the general population; if they are perceived to have taken poor decisions or made strategic mistakes, they pay the price by being voted out of office.

That is, of course, a great simplification of the political process but it largely holds true: we know who we vote for and how we can punish or reward them once they have assumed power.

A matter that often manages to avoid being brought to the surface for public consumption, however, is why and how the decisions made by political leaders come about.

During their time as respectively close advisors to Cameron and Sarkozy, for example, the now-discredited Coulson and Buisson were undeniably significant figures in helping their employers make significant policy decisions — yet neither of them had been elected or were subject to any public accountability.

A phone-hacking criminal and a treacherous secret snoop are hardly the best people to be close to senior positions of national government, and the electorate could well have given fewer votes to Cameron and Sarkozy had they known the true nature of the people they had decided to confide in. The same is true all over the world, no doubt — they are just the ones unlucky enough to have been exposed.

This isn’t to suggest that unelected advisors shouldn’t have a role: it’s only proper that political leaders allow themselves to take advice from specialists. They can’t be expected to know everything about everything and would stand accused of a dictatorial approach if they were arrogant enough to believe they didn’t need guidance from informed outsiders.

However, the public should be given more information about the unelected and often shadowy advisors who often play key roles in reaching significant decisions due to their positions of influence with the men and women that matter.

How that can happen remains to be seen — a more public screening process of potential senior advisory candidates would be a starting point. Until then, positions of power will continue to be influenced by inappropriate characters like Coulson and Buisson.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.