Parliament should ensure party funding by government

| Friday May 29, 2015 12:23

The issue had, before the adoption of the motion by Parliament, been on the agenda of Botswana politics and a priority for the opposition. Academia, media, civil society and even at some point the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime among others called for funding of political parties and regulation of private funding of parties. Whilst the debate wasn’t new in the 10th Parliament, MPs across the political divide were at the time determined to see the matter through to its positive conclusion. What is left is implementation of the motion by the executive and that seems to be a labourous task.

On the 11th December 2014, the Assistant Minister of Presidential Affairs and Public Administration was asked “when the motion adopted by the 10th Parliament on the public funding of political parties will be implemented” and he told Parliament that “given the recent nature of the motion in question, its implementation Mr Speaker would be preceded by consultation and careful analysis of potential options before coming up with a system that is best suited for our country”. The minister also said there is a need to benchmark on funding models including “consideration of budget implications”. Asked to give timelines in terms of when the envisaged exercise will be completed and whether in the 2019 elections parties will be funded, the minister was evasive.

Funding of political parties has not been seen by the government and the ruling party as fundamental to liberal democratic dispensation. The reform is necessary for fairness of the electoral process and to avert the power of wealthy private lobbies. Election outcome is dependent on effective campaigning which depends on resource availability.  Botswana has been for a long time in the same league with other SADC countries like DRC, Madagascar, Mauritius, Zambia, Tanzania (which abolished funding in 2000), and Swaziland (where political parties are outlawed despite court ruling to the contrary). Countries which have provisions for public funding of political parties in SADC include South Africa, The Seychelles, Namibia, Lesotho, Angola, Zimbabwe and Malawi. In Botswana, funding of political parties has been a source of controversy, albeit trivialised by the governing party. Political parties in Botswana have unequal access to campaign and party administration funding opportunities. The ruling party has access to more sources of funding than opposition parties. Its sources include business people and private corporations, its property(s) rented out to private businesses and compulsory subscriptions from incumbent MPs and local councillors as well as other fund raising activities.  Continuous calls to reform by academics, commentators, media and the opposition were ignored until last year when the 10th Parliament took a drastic decision on the matter and adopted a motion.

There is also effectively no law regulating private funding to political parties in Botswana and as a result, the private funding of political parties remains the last legitimate avenue by which the foreign and domestic private sector, foreign governments or even organised criminals can exert influence over the political process and public policy. The current system allows private funding of parties to happen clandestinely. Our political leadership, as custodians of public policy, ultimately runs the risk of growing allegiance to the cheque book rather than the ballot. This situation favours the affluent, the powerful and the corrupt and disadvantages the masses. Secretive private funding has the power to corrupt and subvert voter interest in favour of influential interests groups or individuals who donate funds with conditions attached. In 2001, 20% of British Labour Party’s funding came from large private donors and the Conservatives called for an inquiry into the £32 million smallpox vaccine contract awarded to a Labour Party donor without being put out to tender. The then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admitted that allegations of sleaze relating to large business donations are “a problem” for the British government.  

There is substantial empirical evidence to support the proposition that electoral campaigns directly affect how the electorates vote. This is so because there are two types of voters, informed and uniformed or gullible voters.  Informed voters vote according to the policy pledges of candidates and parties and read and interrogate campaign issues. Uninformed voters are usually passive and lack information about parties and candidates policy pledges and are influenced by campaign spending. Some studies have shown that most voters don’t have information on the main political issues because getting that information is a costly exercise (i.e.: buying and reading newspapers and magazines, watching political programmes on TV, listening to the same on radio, reading policies and manifestos, and attending political debates and rallies). In such a case, election campaign spending could spread information about party policies and as such political campaigns are rather like informative advertising campaigns. Political campaigns then affect the outcome of an election since voters cast their votes depending on the political information at their disposal.

Party funding is more relevant in the tortuous topography such as Botswana’s where most of the rural constituencies are vast and are in deserts/semi deserts, large rivers and not tarred dusty roads. The 2014 polls have been the most expensive by far; the procurement and utilisation or use of choppers, buses, party regalia, billboards and posters, ICT including social media, email, telemarketing techniques, print media and employment of personnel among other things made the campaign exorbitant. The ruling party was ahead and endeavored to subject the opposition to some form of financial fatigue. It is against this backdrop that the 11th Parliament has to put pressure on the executive to actualise what the 10th Parliament decided. Party funding can enhance Botswana’s democracy and should be taken very seriously by the powers that be.