Funding of political parties by business

Throughout the world, business continues to have a significant influence on politics and those who end up in office. This is no different in developing democracies. However significant differences exist in the extent, form and character of how businesses have a political voice and influence.

It is fact that, in developing democracies businesses tend to fund political parties in order to gain influence and get preferential access to government contracts. This has tended to fuel political party entrenchment and corruption. The lack of regulation and transparency that exists contributes to this.

In Zimbabwe, for example, it was recently reported that the Meikles Group is actively funding ZANU (PF)’s election campaign. The group accepted this fact, and there seems to be no negative consequence.

This stands in direct contrast to 2004, when it was rumored that Trust Bank’s banking license was withdrawn because it had allocated more political funding to the MDC, the opposition, compared to what it had contributed to ZANU (PF). 

The funding of opposition parties by business continues to be viewed and treated as a threat to ruling political parties and with serious business consequences.

In South Africa, ABSA bank, always openly discloses its funding to political parties with the ANC receiving the highest share. There seems to be no recriminations, but I wonder what would happen if ABSA decided to only fund opposition parties.

These are some of the contradictions we face in Africa. These contradictions are faced by businesses that may want to promote democracy but also may be dependent on government contracts which are normally under the control of ruling political parties.

The challenge is for us to reconcile these to the benefit of democracy.

Putting into place rules and laws that regulate the funding of political parties can therefore reconcile these contradictions by making political party contributions an objective and transparent exercise that seeks to promote multi party democracy.

Such regulations must limit the extent of contributions business can make to a political party and be transparent for all to see. In addition, business must be required to disclose the extent of their dealings with the sitting government to limit future corruption.

We need to admit; that business can play a very crucial role is promoting multi party democracy as long as this is done in the interest of democracy and not with a view to gain influence and access to government business. However, in developing democracies, this may be asking for too much.

By Vince Musewe.

Without equal access to state funds,it is an uphill task for the small parties to achieve their GOALS

Can politicians be objective?

The question we need to ask is; can politicians whose political party is funded by individuals or groups, be objective in not favouring those individuals or groups when it comes to access to government contracts?

The straight answer is no, they cannot but they need to be if we are to fight corruption. They can only be so if they are adequate checks and balances to ensure that even if they are not objective, they are unable to effect any favour.

Government procurement and tender procedures must therefore be an area of focus. In my opinion, the regulating of the funding of political parties cannot be isolated from the need for transparent governance and internal controls especially on government procurement procedures.

We all know the challenges faced here, where, political parties tend to deploy their cadres into strategic positions in anticipation of individuals returning favours for such appointments. This practice is rife in African countries. In fact the ANC in South Africa openly admits that yes indeed it has a policy of cadre deployment. This has resulted in serious corruption in the procurement of government business, especially where tenders are offered – obviously in the name of Black Economic Empowerment!

Unfortunately, in the USA for example, we also have seen favour to specific companies when it comes to defence contracts even in the face of strong regulations of political funding.

I do not think that this practice can be totally curbed but could be mitigated through an independent government procurement body and an independent tender board which must take away the function from line ministries. This, of course may have its inefficiencies regarding the speed at which objective decision can be made. But rather than having a loose decentralized and opaque system as in the case in developing democracies, the secret, of course, would be to appoint individuals to these bodies who are non partisan but also, to have such bodies accountable to the public. For example all information could be made available to the public on the internet as the UK plans to do.

Another problem we face is the Official Secret Acts that tends to limit access by the public to government information. The new Zimbabwean constitution deals with this matter but we are yet to see it in practice.

It must be evident to all that the funding of political parties and its effects are rather complex subjects that cannot be effectively dealt with without looking at governance as a whole.

It is therefore important that, when considering solutions, to examine and understand all facets of government practice, values and systems that are in place.

In emerging democracies it will take a long time and significant political will to ensure that political funding has no negative effects on governance.

By Vince Musewe

Contestation for Political Office must not be for the Elites

Zimbabweans are all too familiar with the name Egypt Dzinemunenzva, leader of African National Party (ANP), perennial presidential candidate. The country has also encountered countless other candidates dismissed by people as dubious. These and many other individuals fed up with ZANU-PF misrule have sought to stop further suffering of people by vying for the highest political office.  

Some of those who have contested in previous elections, the likes of ZANU Ndonga’s Wilson Kumbula, the late Enoch Dumbutshena’s Forum Party, fiery guerilla leader Edgar Tekere’s ZUM, Wurayayi Zembe’s Democratic Party (DP) among a host of others could – could not sustain a fierce battle against ZANU-PF’s decades old rule owing to inferior resources.

While ZANU-PF and the two MDC formations are building massive support partially through state funding, the smaller parties are languishing in abject poverty.  This has only perpetuated the domination of Zimbabwe’s political space by elites, thus reducing the noble battle for democratisation to money rather than the merit of party ideology. 

The Political Parties Finance Act sidelines the poor and the ordinary candidate while promoting interests of political fat cats who can easily manipulate citizens for selfish interest. Allowing the country to continue using such a prohibitive and restrictive law is tantamount to declaring politics a privilege of the financially gifted.  Throughout the world, elitist politics have been dismissed on the basis that if elected into government, an elite leader will not dare listen to the voices of the ordinary men in the streets. This is one of the many reasons why former coal miners in England celebrated the death of Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher.

A closer look at the 2008 harmonized elections reveals that some political parties and candidates existed only on the eve of the national plebiscite, more accurately, on Nomination Court day! No party or candidate expects to win an election without campaigning. Campaigning needs both financial and human resources. It is imperative that Zimbabwe enacts laws that treat all political parties existing in the country as equal players.

ZESN argues that political multiplicity is necessary to strengthen democratic environment. In such a scenario, citizens – especially women candidates - must be exposed to skills of how to raise money, campaign, and build name recognition. Institutions like WIPSU [women in politics support unit]; WAFA [women’s academy for Africa] have to link women candidates to fundraising networks. Ideally, they must be given priority to funding quotas; otherwise the regulatory framework must impose mandatory limits on campaign funding.

Democracy is all about affording citizens varied and diverse choices during elections. Any political candidate vying for political office should be afforded equal opportunities to reach the masses and market his/her party manifesto. Different and diverse political parties, candidates and manifestos remain the only oil that fuels the democracy engine to flourish modern day politics.

 
By Thomas Madhuku

The inevitability of foreign funding of political parties

During the 1970s liberation war, Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) was trained in and funded by Russia. Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) was Chinese-trained and also funded by the Chinese government during the same war. The two military wings were united in wanting an independent Zimbabwe and they prevailed. It is therefore common cause that there is no noble political mission whose objectives can be achieved without sustainable finance. If the country’s major military wings during the significant liberation struggle sought external funding, this then means that even to this day, there is a crying need for political parties in Zimbabwe to seek funding beyond the borders albeit legitimately.

Zimbabwe Election Network [ZESN] has undertaken numerous studies on how and why political parties require sustainable funding. Democracy and political competition is stifled where parties lack finance. Zimbabwe’s electoral process is generally in two stages: where a candidate battles it out with those of his/her party in primaries and then having to contend with more of other political parties. This costs money.

Until the passage of the Political Parties (Finance) Act of 1992 in Zimbabwe, there was no provision for the financing of political parties. Even though, candidates from all the three beneficiating parties in the GNU will argue that party financing will never be enough. The Act itself is not exhaustive since it leaves a lot of room for abuse. By prohibiting political parties and candidates from receiving funds from foreign donors, one would assume it plugs the holes on what exactly ‘legitimate’ funds can be used for. It is common cause that parties channel some of the funds to institutional cost centres that have very little to do with democracy.

Moreover, the ‘big budgets’ that are reflected from the expenditures of both ZANU-PF and MDC-T raise a lot of questions on where additional funds come from. Membership fees, merchandise sales and other ‘donations’ from internal sources do not match some expenditure flouted by the two political parties. Of late, MDC’s Professor Welshman Ncube has been questioned by ‘small’ parties where he secures funds to ‘flood’ his constituents with bicycles!  

Although major political parties often accuse each other of being bankrolled by foreign donors with imperial motives, no convictions under the current Act are on record. ZANU-PF officials routinely embark on trips to the Far East and MDC officials travel mostly to western countries. There is no regulatory framework in place to audit such trips.

Fringe political parties like Mavambo Kusile Dawn [MKD], ZAPU, ZLP and MDC99 have always sought to either discredit the Act or push for its repeal. They argue that barring foreign funding of political parties is a brainchild of ZANU-PF aimed at incapacitating the then opposition parties which were seen as a threat to the party’s perpetual political hegemony. However, political scientist Eldred Masunungure seems to concur with ZESN studies that as long as the regulatory framework is porous, fringe political parties can still source funds without breaking the law.

Small parties have a point. Political parties need money to operate and there is no doubt that strong democracies require healthy political parties and in turn, political parties require resources to sustain and operate a basic party structure, to contest elections and to contribute to policy debate. This helps in promoting democracy in general, rather than mere electoral competition. 

By Jeffrey Moyo

Will regulating political parties lead to better democracy?

Politics is about money and power, not necessarily the pursuance of the common good.

When done in good faith, party regulation is meant to promote transparency and democratic accountability to the public, curb corrupt practices and provide for penalties for breach of the regulations.

The question is; does good faith exist when it comes to seeking political power?

I contend that politics in Africa is still a dirty game where transparency and public accountability are not a priority. Because of this, the regulation of funding of political parties will remain an ideal that is unlikely to be achieved in the short term, even if there are regulatory laws in place.

Individuals and corporates support political parties because of what they anticipate to benefit from them once they are in power. This funding is largely determined by what a political party stands for. However, experience has shown us despite what political party may state as its intended objectives, the exercise of power is a completely different ball game compared to electioneering. The majority of political parties in Africa have been unable to deliver that which they have promised.

It is my opinion that politics is hardly a fair game that can be effectively regulated and where such regulation exists, we have not seen any evidence of transparency and accountability by the political parties. They continue to be secretive and clandestine in the way they operate particularly when it comes to finances. I think this is so because funding is indeed a competitive advantage for any political party and there will continue to be a tendency for keeping that information private.

In Zimbabwe the separation of the state machinery from the ruling political party continues to be a challenge and this means that the use of public funds by the ruling party will continue to be opaque and secretive as we have experienced. Even where funding is ‘regulated’ by the Political Parties Finance Act, will regulating funding of political parties instill a sense of ‘public accountability’? I doubt that.

Emerging political parties need funding to survive and grow but we continue to see proposals that promote their funding by the public only once they have achieved a certain threshold. This means that they are unable to access funding when they need it most at establishment phase. The barriers to entry for new entrants will therefore continue to limit the democratic space.

Yes democracy in Africa needs to be deepened through the promotion of multi party systems. However their funding and how they manage their affairs need not be in the public domain. Freedom of expression and association ceases to be freedom once there is a regulatory body that seeks to control how citizens express their freedom and how they organize themselves into political parties.

We must never ignore the fact that: politics is about money and power, not necessarily the pursuance of the common good.

By Vince Musewe