Party Funding: The horns of a Dilema - Finding Solutions 10 Years On by Patricia De Lille
2004-06-30. I want to thank IDASA for holding this extremely important discussion tonight over the issue of political party funding. It is an issue which has not been sufficiently tackled in our new democracy, and the Independent Democrats believe that far more attention needs to be given to it. ID believes that IDASA is right when it characterises this issue as being on the horns of a dilemma. There are no easy answers to resolving what are complex challenges surrounding the issue of party funding. In my address tonight I will not focus so much on the answers as the questions that ID believes need to be urgently asked. IDASA's right to know campaign has brought the issue of party funding transparency into the limelight, and while this is an important issue it needs to be put into the context of a whole host of other factors concerning party funding. I will try and outline some of those factors.
At the outset of this discussion we need to ask ourselves the question
of how political funding interfaces with the functioning of democracy.
Democracy, in its ideal form should be the expression of the will of
the people. In a representative democracy, political parties compete
with each other in presenting different views, policies and actions to
the population at large. People are then asked to decide which party
best represents their interests by casting their vote for them.
Unfortunately, however, it is often not just about the message that is
presented, but how far that political party can disseminate it to the
people. It is at this point that party funding comes into play. The
amount of funds that a political party possesses determines the extent
to which it can publicise its party and its message to the public at
large. It therefore distorts the ideal functioning of democracy by it
no longer being just about the message, but how successful a party is
at disseminating it. For a young party like the Independent Democrats
with very little resources we had to think up creative ways in which we
could capture the public's imagination at very little cost.
Funding also impacts on the resources that are available to the party in developing its message and responding in an organised fashion to the political debates. For a political party to function effectively, particularly on a national level, vast amounts of financial and human resources are required.
The flip-side of this coin are the reasons why individuals and corporations would choose to fund particular parties. The ruling party has an unfair advantage in that it holds the levers of power and has influence over the awarding of government tenders. This is not to claim that individuals or corporations simply buy these tenders in a straight transactional deal, but certainly donating money to the ruling party will make them consider these entities more favourably. It stands to reason that these entities will also be granted a greater audience in policy debates over government legislation.
So what then do opposition parties have to offer to potential donors? Opposition parties can only offer a voice in pushing a certain agenda within the halls of power. Those opposition parties who push the agenda of big business or people with money and privilege will obviously stand a much greater chance at attracting party funding. This is an important issue and we must ask ourselves to what extent this determines the policy debate in South Africa. Political parties that represent the interests of the poor will struggle to raise funds for their organisation. If your constituency is the poor and unemployed you will also struggle to raise funds from your members. In this subtle, but important way, democracy is distorted once again in that your political message is forced to be attractive not only to the voters, but to those who possess the financial resources.
Given these distortions, how then do we change the political party funding system to enable democracy to function according to its true objectives. The one proposal is to have a system that relies solely on state funds. Some countries in Europe use this funding system, but the problem comes in as to how you then allocate the funding resources to political parties. If you allocate it according to your representation in parliament you will simply be entrenching the status quo and giving an unfair advantage to those parties who already hold electoral strength. If on the other hand, you distribute it on an equal basis, your funding will not be representative of the will of the people. This will also allow for any individual to enter the system and compete regardless of their credibility or strength of their message.
The most appropriate system for South Africa would therefore probably be a mixture of both State and private funding. The principle of transparency should be respected when it comes to private funding. This, however, would need to apply to all political parties as it would negatively affect those parties who did it in isolation of others. The other factor to consider is the way in which donors might be unwilling to donate openly to opposition parties for fear of losing favour with the ruling party. Those companies that were transparent with their donations in the last election mainly gave on the basis of a formula that spread the resources across different parties. This avoided the potential danger of alienating the ruling party, but it also entrenched the status quo of political party strength.
ID feels that both State and private funding should be given to political parties on both an equitable and a proportional basis. Fifty percent of the funds should be allocated on an equal basis to all political parties and the other fifty percent should be allocated according to their parliamentary strength.
The Independent Democrats also feel that the best way to level the playing field is in fact not to simply concentrate on funding but on spending. ID believes that a cap should be placed on election spending, such that no party can spend more than an amount of R10 million during their election campaign. ID believes that it is completely immoral for political parties to be spending upwards of R20 million and in some cases even R100 million, on publicising its message when our country is faced with intolerable levels of poverty. By placing such a cap on election spending, our elections will become more about the message of political parties rather than their ability and resources to publicise it.
As I stated at the outset, the issue of political party funding is a particularly complex one and there are no easy answers. It is clear, however, that the present system is not in the interests of either democracy or accountable governance. ID therefore applauds IDASA for initiating this debate and we look forward to working towards a solution that serves the interests of our people and democracy.
I thank you
Funding also impacts on the resources that are available to the party in developing its message and responding in an organised fashion to the political debates. For a political party to function effectively, particularly on a national level, vast amounts of financial and human resources are required.
The flip-side of this coin are the reasons why individuals and corporations would choose to fund particular parties. The ruling party has an unfair advantage in that it holds the levers of power and has influence over the awarding of government tenders. This is not to claim that individuals or corporations simply buy these tenders in a straight transactional deal, but certainly donating money to the ruling party will make them consider these entities more favourably. It stands to reason that these entities will also be granted a greater audience in policy debates over government legislation.
So what then do opposition parties have to offer to potential donors? Opposition parties can only offer a voice in pushing a certain agenda within the halls of power. Those opposition parties who push the agenda of big business or people with money and privilege will obviously stand a much greater chance at attracting party funding. This is an important issue and we must ask ourselves to what extent this determines the policy debate in South Africa. Political parties that represent the interests of the poor will struggle to raise funds for their organisation. If your constituency is the poor and unemployed you will also struggle to raise funds from your members. In this subtle, but important way, democracy is distorted once again in that your political message is forced to be attractive not only to the voters, but to those who possess the financial resources.
Given these distortions, how then do we change the political party funding system to enable democracy to function according to its true objectives. The one proposal is to have a system that relies solely on state funds. Some countries in Europe use this funding system, but the problem comes in as to how you then allocate the funding resources to political parties. If you allocate it according to your representation in parliament you will simply be entrenching the status quo and giving an unfair advantage to those parties who already hold electoral strength. If on the other hand, you distribute it on an equal basis, your funding will not be representative of the will of the people. This will also allow for any individual to enter the system and compete regardless of their credibility or strength of their message.
The most appropriate system for South Africa would therefore probably be a mixture of both State and private funding. The principle of transparency should be respected when it comes to private funding. This, however, would need to apply to all political parties as it would negatively affect those parties who did it in isolation of others. The other factor to consider is the way in which donors might be unwilling to donate openly to opposition parties for fear of losing favour with the ruling party. Those companies that were transparent with their donations in the last election mainly gave on the basis of a formula that spread the resources across different parties. This avoided the potential danger of alienating the ruling party, but it also entrenched the status quo of political party strength.
ID feels that both State and private funding should be given to political parties on both an equitable and a proportional basis. Fifty percent of the funds should be allocated on an equal basis to all political parties and the other fifty percent should be allocated according to their parliamentary strength.
The Independent Democrats also feel that the best way to level the playing field is in fact not to simply concentrate on funding but on spending. ID believes that a cap should be placed on election spending, such that no party can spend more than an amount of R10 million during their election campaign. ID believes that it is completely immoral for political parties to be spending upwards of R20 million and in some cases even R100 million, on publicising its message when our country is faced with intolerable levels of poverty. By placing such a cap on election spending, our elections will become more about the message of political parties rather than their ability and resources to publicise it.
As I stated at the outset, the issue of political party funding is a particularly complex one and there are no easy answers. It is clear, however, that the present system is not in the interests of either democracy or accountable governance. ID therefore applauds IDASA for initiating this debate and we look forward to working towards a solution that serves the interests of our people and democracy.
I thank you
