Politics is a Money Game

By Rejoice Ngwenya 

American President Barack Obama’s social network savvy electoral team was reported to have raised in excess of one hundred million US dollars in personal campaign funds. This is the budget of Zimbabwe’s 2013 parliamentary and Presidential election! If the so-called

smaller Zimbabwe political parties – ZAPU, NDP, Zapu/FP, ZANU Ndonga, ZPP, MKD, MDC99 – had access to a mere one tenth of Obama’s budget, the quality of democratic competition would increase tenfold.

According to numerous surveys conducted by Professor Eldred Masunungure for ZESN, it does not take anything to register a political party in Zimbabwe. In fact, the Private Voluntary Organisations [PVO] Act that moderates registration of NGOs is stricter than the ‘registration’ of political parties. One assumes the new electoral laws will correct this anomaly.

Political parties need money to run their offices, print party materials and pay for meetings and advertisements. They ‘survive’ on party structures and members, thus to maintain this network, they require thousands of dollars. Herein lies the challenge: if a political party is not registrable – for want of a term – to what extent can the leaders of that party be called to account?

There are credible arguments for disclosure; however, it is still highly debatable whether or not ‘official’ political parties like ZANU-PF, MDC and MDC exercise full disclosure even within their ranks. Electoral candidates have frequently complained of discrimination - especially women candidates. When party leaders embark on epic fundraising trips to Europe, there is no auditing system to make them account for each dollar raised. Even when candidates produce budgets for personal party regalia, meetings and constituency trips, more often than not party treasurers reject or mutilate these budgets. A National Democratic Institute research reveals how party leaders’ personal funds contribute 12% of total electoral expenditure in Africa. This promotes cronyism, founder member syndrome and party ‘ownership’.

Some wards and constituencies – especially in rural areas – are so vast candidates need motorized transport. If there have no money, they cannot meet their constituents or compete effectively with better resourced candidates. The big parties like ZANU-PF, MDC and MDC can book press advertisements, send candidates for trainings to workshop, pay per diems and release press statements. When there is need for litigation, these parties can attract the best lawyers in the land. At times they are even accused of vote buying and false promises of empowerment. All because they have the money.

In a constitutional democracy like we have in Zimbabwe, political participation and representation is a right. This right is easily moderated by political institutions but if the potency of such institutions is limited by unavailability of money, the state has a constitutional obligation to fill the deficit. US$5 million has so far been budgeted for three eligible parties in 2013. However, as long as the Political Parties Finances Act does ‘not recognise small parties’, those members under the tutelage of  ZAPU, NDP, Zapu/FP, ZANU Ndonga, ZPP, MKD, MDC99 will be condemned perpetually to the fringes of political insignificance. The danger is also that candidate selection may be based on resourcing resulting in elitism.

Parties raise dust over political funding

As Zimbabwe heads for polls later this year to end a four-year old coalition government between Zanu PF and the two MDCs, parties have started haggling over funding, triggering debate on how the Political Parties Finance Act could best be amended to give parties an even playing field.

Report by Everson Mushava
Political analyst and top researcher Phillan Zamchiya says there was nothing wrong with political parties receiving foreign funding from friendly countries they share values and beliefs with.

He feels that while funding political parties internally was the ideal option, foreign funding could only become dangerous when it was conditional and the funders were attempting to advance their interests.
“There is nothing wrong with foreign funding of political parties if it is coming from friendly countries that believe in the same values with the funded political parties,” Zamchiya said.

Zamchiya’s observations came at a time President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF party, in office since independence in 1980, has been demonising Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai as a “Western puppet” alleging his MDC-T was funded by Britain and its allies, particularly America.

Recently, Zanu PF politburo member Jonathan Moyo accused MDC leader Welshman Ncube of also receiving funding from the West to advance a regime change agenda.

Both MDCs and observers have hit back, saying Mugabe’s party was denying them foreign funding because it feared political competition. They accused the party of hypocrisy, denying others funding while the party received funding from foreigners. Other than that, they said, Zanu PF was funding its activities from Marange diamonds.

According to Zimbabwe’s Political Parties (Finance) Act (PPFA), funding of political parties by the State is provided to any party with a 5% threshold of the vote (Electoral Act 2:13).

The 5% threshold came into being after the Zanu PF government was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1997 to review the threshold from 15 parliamentary seats, which was deemed prohibitively high.
The tragedy for democracy is that under this Act, of the country’s 25 registered political parties, only Zanu PF and the two MDCs qualify for State funding, with the rest left to fight for political survival on empty accounts.

Ironically, there is virtually no regulatory framework to nail illegal party funding or limit electoral spending. Although the PPFA bans foreign funding of political parties, even from Zimbabweans in the Diaspora, it does not limit donations received by political parties from private sources, which ironically could translate into “foreign” funding.

The Act does not regulate how political parties use funds obtained from the State, neither are there checks and balances to limit chances of abuse of these funds.

Zamchiya supported the use of thresholds to access State funding saying giving every political party government funds would burden the taxpayer.

“A party needs to prove that it is a serious party with formal structures through representation in Parliament in order to get government funding,” Zamchiya said.

He asserts that even during the liberation struggle, there was support from other countries such as Sweden, Denmark, China, Russia and others. His counterpart, Professor Eldred Masunungure argues for transparency and disclosure. His research for Zesn has shown that even the mere use of State resources by “GNU partners” is not seen as abuse, because there is no regulatory instrument to judge this.

Funny enough, before the MDCs “joined” Mugabe in government, they mourned about Zanu PF’s flagrant abuse of public funds, public media and local authorities.

Another political analyst Ernest Mudzengi said giving funding to political parties was a good idea, but there should be some checks and balances to ensure the money is put to good use.
Like Zamchiya, Mudzengi believes only serious parties should access funds to avoid fly-by night parties formed only to loot State funds.

However, Simba Makoni’s Mavambo party and PF Zapu, which do not receive government funding, said denying them funding was unfair and selfish of the so called big parties with a big brother mentality saying “all political parties started off from nothing”.

“Politics is an expensive exercise in terms of campaigning without money, a party cannot do much. Denying other parties State funding is too selfish, but only serious parties should be funded, not every party,” Mudzengi said.

Story extracted from http://www.newsday.co.zw/2013/04/22/parties-raise-dust-over-political-funding/ 

Uneven distribution of political finance unhealthy for democracy

Kadoma: “We remain deeply concerned by the lack of progress globally on effectively regulating the flow of large sums of private money unto the elections process in many countries. Political financing remains the number one corruption risk around the world, and absent meaningful reforms will continue to hinder many other open government and transparency initiative” (Nathaniel Heller, Global Integrity Executive Director, 2011).  It is in this context that the ZESN facilitated the holding of a roundtable in Kadoma last month to discuss issues around political parties’ finances, as limited regulation on political parties’ finances would threaten the legitimacy of the democratic processes and practices.

Addressing delegates at the meeting attended by different political parties, civil society organizations and academia, the ZESN’s National director Rindai Chipfunde-Vava said, candidates and political parties campaign finances needs to be regulated in terms of (i) limits, (ii) sources of funding and (iii) expenditure.    

“While recognizing that democracy is priceless, its functioning does have a price, and the use of economic resources is an essential element for democratic competence. The money in politics is capable of introducing distortions if there is unequal distribution, if the use of funds is not regulated, it can threaten the legitimacy of the democratic processes and practices,” said Chipfunde-Vava at the roundtable meeting.

Chipfunde-Vava also added that political parties campaigning in an election need funding for two purposes namely for institutional support and money for campaigning in the election.

In agreement, the ZESN chairperson, Rev. Dr Solmon Zwana added that, “Democracy cannot function effectively unless political parties have enough money to carry out their activities and enough members willing to perform them. The relationship between money and politics has come to be one of the great problems of democratic government and that healthy political life is not possible as long as the use of money is unrestrained,” said Dr Zwana.

In Zimbabwe, the Political Parties (Finance) Act [Chapter 2:11] of 2001 makes it illegal for parties to receive foreign funding; hence they have limited avenues to source funds for their activities and this therefore create opaqueness in terms of how parties source their funding.

In light of this, the major political parties in Zimbabwe depend solely on methods such as membership dues, sale of merchandise and donations. However the Director of ZESN explained that, normally these methods would not raise much funding needed for political parties to survive since these methods might be insignificant and are normally considered “small.” That leaves political parties to depend on other methods such as: kickbacks, returns on undeclared business investments, use and abuse of state resources, illicit sources, foreign donations, anonymous sources, and donations.

ZESN is therefore advocating for the creation of an environment that provide women and men with skills to raise money, campaign, and build name recognition. Chipfunde-Vava suggested that funding quotas for women would help women candidates to contest in elections. “There must also be clear political parties finance regulations which include mandatory limits, declaration of sources and campaign duration or expenditure on political parties funding. In addition, there is also need to ensure that there is transparency and proper enforcement mechanisms of the regulations,” added Chipfunde-Vava.

Violations resurge in Zimbabwe

As the curtain closes on the life of the GNU with the country headed for the referendum and landmark general elections, violence and intimidation are rearing their ugly heads once again.

Over the past four years under the leadership of the GNU, Zimbabwe has been seen as a country on its path to recovery from the horror violence of 2008. However, the reports from the ZESN observers for the month of February indicate that violations on fundamental human freedoms are on the rise. These reports have also come at a time when ZESN offices and other civic society organisations have been raided by the police on what have been described as unconvincing charges.

The next harmonised elections which are probably the biggest since independence and much rests on their outcomes. It is therefore worrisome that the ZESN observers have noted the setting up of structures which can be used to violate people’s rights in provinces such as Manicaland, Mashonaland West, Mashonaland Central, Mashonaland East, Harare, Masvingo and Matabeleland North and South.

Reports by the ZESN observers indicate that in there appears to be a revival of youth militia activities and the politicisation of food aid in some areas of the country. According to the report the politicisation of food aid is allegedly mainly led by the youth officers who are stationed in each ward. In light of the importance of the impending elections and the great need to respect and safeguard human rights before, during and after the election the role of these officers must be seriously interrogated to avoid a relapse into the 2008 scenario.

Furthermore, the gruesome death of a 12 year old child in Headlands who was burnt in a suspected case of politically motivated case of violence has sent shock waves across the country. ZESN calls on the GNU to ensure that peace is upheld in order to instil confidence in the electorate that there will not be retribution in the aftermath of the election. Zimbabwe cannot afford to go through another undemocratic election and the GNU through its structures must ensure that peace is upheld at all cost.

Does foreign funding cause political violence?

ZIMBABWE Election Commission (Zec) deputy chairperson Joyce Kazembe last month told a workshop in Harare that foreign funding of political parties was one of the main causes of electoral violence in Zimbabwe.
Report by Everson Mushava
Kazembe said parties will be in a desperate situation to protect the interests of their foreign funders. This observation, if true, does not only show the dilemma Zimbabwe is wading in, but also poses threats to democratic governance.
While Kazembe’s utterancess could be subject to debate, it brings into focus the issue of funding of political parties. Although it has influenced the country’s political landscape for years, Zimbabweans have not bothered to critically discuss on the subject.
President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF party, in office since independence in 1980, has been demonising Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai as a “Western puppet” alleging his MDC-T was funded by Britain and its allies, particularly America.
Whether the allegation is true or mere political rhetoric aimed at discrediting Tsvangirai’s march to State House, the idea has gained currency in Zanu PF circles. It has formed part of Zanu PF campaign messages against the MDC-T.
Such allegations have instilled fear in the country’s security forces and remnants of the veterans of the 1970s liberation struggle who feel Tsvangirai would reverse, if he attains power, the gains of the struggle because of his alleged alliances to the West.
Some vocal generals have publicly threatened to subvert the will of the people if the former trade unionist wins the election. Recently, MDC leader Welshman Ncube was also dragged into the mud, with Zanu PF politburo member Jonathan Moyo alleging his party was also bankrolled by foreigners.
But Tsvangirai and Ncube have both accused Zanu PF of the same offence after it was reported the party last year received a donation of 550 campaign vehicles from Meikles shareholder John Moxon, apart from other forms of aid from China, Zanu PF’s all-whether friend.
Some deals with the Chinese, the MDCs say, are tantamount to mortgaging the country. The MDCs accuse Zanu PF of clandestine dealings in Chiadzwa using illicit diamond money to create a war chest ahead of elections.
“Democracy cannot function effectively unless political parties have enough money to carry out their activities and enough members willing to perform them,” Clare Ettinghausen noted in a position paper — Paying for Politics — in a Hansard Society of 2006. Hansard Society is a British independent educational charity which promotes parliamentary democracy.
Zimbabwe’s Political Parties (Finance) Act (PPFA) provides for funding of political parties by the State, provided the party meets the threshold of 5% of the vote (Electoral Act 2:13).
Initially, a party needed 15 seats in Parliament to qualify for funding from the government before the Zanu PF government was forced to amend the Act after the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the threshold was prohibitively high.
But still, under the current Act, of the country’s registered 24 political parties, only Zanu PF and the MDCs qualify for State funding, raising suspicion such a law could have been deliberately crafted to avoid political competition.
The PPFA bans foreign funding of political parties, even from Zimbabweans in the Diaspora, but curiously, does not limit donations lawfully received by political parties from private sources, which mischievously could amount to foreign funding.
The Act does not regulate how political parties use funds obtained from the State.
According to a position paper prepared by political scientist Eldred Masunungure for the election watchdog Zimbabwe Election Support Network: “Zimbabwe’s political finance system is not transparent and is thus vulnerable to corruption.
The probability is high that political parties are improperly funded from sources that are corrupt or potentially corrupting.”
He added: “The Electoral Act is silent on the corrupt flow of money in politics. The Act cannot be said to have anti-corruption provisions that ensure that parties and candidates are properly funded from sources that are neither corrupt nor potentially corrupting, and that the funds are accountable to oversight bodies and general public for their funding.”
Because of the flaws in the Act, political parties have not been taken to task over the sources of their funds when their spending is 20 times their State allocation in a parliamentary year.
Masunungure contends that parties raise funds through several ways such as membership fees, contributions by the members and fundraising activities, to name a few, but failure by governments to fund new parties is “a reflection of the extent to which the transition programmes towards multi-party democracy are directed and dominated by ‘incumbent authoritarian rulers’ who have no shortages of financial resources”.
The most useful State resource at the disposal of the incumbents is “a highly centralised control over broadcasting” and print media which ruling parties use to generate favourable views while vilifying the opposition.
In Zimbabwe, Zanu PF has been accused by rivals and media advocates of monopolising broadcasting services in the same manner the Ian Smith regime did before independence with popular cartoonist Tony Namate using a borrowed statement “the more things change, the more they remain the same” on one of his cartoons to illustrate this phenomenon.
An interpretation of the PPFA shows that a party would need to contest an election first to get a 5% of the vote in order to qualify for State funds.
This, observers say, would end up pushing parties to look for foreign funding.
Ruling parties have always been afraid of political competition. Former Malawian President the late Kamuzu Banda justified a one-party State saying: “God does not want opposition that is why he chased away Satan from heaven. Why would Kamuzu Banda want opposition in Malawi?”
But political analyst Rejoice Ngwenya said foreign funding was not the major cause of electoral violence, but a culture of impunity by the incumbent and a spirited attempt to avoid political competition.
“What matters is not where the money is coming from, but credibility of sources of funds.
“At times we have locals involved in money laundering sponsoring political parties for their selfish ends,” Ngwenya said.
Ngwenya said in Zimbabwe, Zanu PF did not come out open that they hate opposition, but their violent tendencies against opposition parties and reluctance to offer funds to opposition all the years was testimony to that.
Zimbabwe Democracy Institute director Pedzisai Ruhanya said: “Maybe Kazembe is admitting that Zanu PF and the security agents are foreign-funded because they are the perpetrators of violence.
Violence in Zimbabwe is State organised and perpetrated a culture of impunity.
“Surprisingly, Kazembe has endorsed several elections including the 2008 elections that were disputed by the international community. She has never pointed her finger at Zanu PF, the perpetrator of violence in these elections. Foreign funding is not the cause of violence, Zanu PF is.”
Zanu PF secretary for administration Didymus Mutasa has repeatedly accused the MDCs of causing violence.