tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/political-party-funding-21011/articlespolitical party funding – The Conversation2024-03-13T14:47:19Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2256202024-03-13T14:47:19Z2024-03-13T14:47:19ZThe abuse of Diane Abbott by a top Tory donor should have us all thinking about how we normalise racism against women MPs<p>Yet again a black woman in British public life has been subjected to racist and sexist abuse. This may be shocking, but it is not surprising. </p>
<p>When Tory donor Frank Hester said that looking at Diane Abbott “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/11/biggest-tory-donor-looking-diane-abbott-hate-all-black-women">makes you want to hate all black women</a>” his comments were extreme. Yet they were hardly out of the ordinary.</p>
<p>Likewise, the reluctance of some parliamentary colleagues to address the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68542621">racial and gendered nature of the comments</a> is sadly unsurprising, as was the slowness with which the prime minister responded, only belatedly and after pressure from ministers, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/12/conservative-donor-frank-hester-comments-diane-abbott-racist-wrong-no-10-rishi-sunak#:%7E:text=No%2010%20and%20Conservative%20ministers,MP%20%E2%80%9Cshould%20be%20shot%E2%80%9D.">admitting the remarks were racist</a>. </p>
<p>Whether you love or loathe Abbott (who has been suspended from the parliamentary Labour party for her <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65374104">own comments on race</a>) this is more than a story about a single individual.</p>
<p>All politicians in the UK are facing increasing levels of violence, harassment and abuse. Data from the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.13070">representative audit of Britain</a> survey shows that in 2019, 49% of parliamentary candidates indicated that they had suffered some form of abuse, harassment and intimidation while campaigning. This is a rise of 11 percentage points compared with 2017. </p>
<p>However, evidence also shows ethnic minority women face exceptional dangers in public life. Variation in experiences of harassment and intimidation is enormous: 63% of ethnic minority women candidates reported experiencing abuse compared with 38% of ethnic minority men, 34% of white men and 45% of white women. </p>
<p>The intimidation experienced by ethnic minority women also sometimes originates <a href="https://renewal.org.uk/archive/vol-29-2021/inconvenient-voices-muslim-women-in-the-labour-party/">within their own political parties</a>. Muslim women in both Labour and the Conservatives have spoken up about this problem. </p>
<p>On top of this, black women experience specific forms of anti-black racism combined with misogyny. African American scholar Moya Bailey coined the term “<a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.18574/nyu/9781479803392.001.0001/html">mysogynoir</a>” to describe this phenomenon in the US, but the UK also abounds with examples. For example, in 2016, Dawn Butler, another black woman Labour MP, revealed that she had been <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35685169">mistaken for a cleaner by a fellow MP</a>. She said this was just a single example of “so many incidents” in parliament.</p>
<p>And although headlines often ostensibly celebrate “diversity” in politics, campaign press coverage also <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1940161216673195">subjects minority ethnic women to extreme scrutiny</a>. This renders figures such as Abbott hyper-visible, at the same time as being exceptionally negative in tone and narrowly focused on ethnicity and gender. </p>
<p>Untangling the relationship between these forces is extremely tricky. While black and minority ethnic women MPs are uncomfortably visible, the ethnic minority women that all MPs are supposed to represent actually face a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1332/251510821X16739744241737">crisis of representation</a> in parliament. </p>
<p>They are very rarely spoken about in parliamentary debates, and when they are, it is usually by white men and in relation to an extremely narrow range of issues, such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/fgm-5898">female genital mutilation</a> and trafficking. There is less debate about how race and gender permeate many other aspects of minority ethnic women’s lives.</p>
<h2>Taking black and ethnic minority women MPs seriously</h2>
<p>While Frank Hester’s comments are therefore deeply concerning, they should not be viewed as an exception. Racial and gendered inequalities are still rife in British politics, and they hit black and ethnic minority women the hardest. </p>
<p>We cannot treat examples like this as isolated incidents or as being the work of “bad apples”. Instead, we need to take heed of clear patterns in the data and ask uncomfortable questions about political institutions. What would it take to eliminate these dynamics from political parties, parliament and the press?</p>
<p>Perhaps one way to start is to listen to, and take seriously, the words of people like Abbott herself. In response to Hester’s remarks, she <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/mar/12/minister-calls-tory-donor-frank-hesters-diane-abbott-comments-completely-unacceptable-but-refuses-to-go-further-uk-politics-live">revealed</a> how vulnerable she feels when just travelling around her constituency. </p>
<p>“For all of my career as an MP I have thought it important not to live in a bubble, but to mix and mingle with ordinary people,” she said. “The fact that two MPs have been murdered in recent years makes talk like this all the more alarming.”</p>
<p>When his comments were exposed, Hester admitted that he had been “rude about Diane Abbot in a private meeting several years ago” but insisted that his comments “had nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin”. The character of Hester’s apology itself speaks to the normalisation of abuse and incivility, as well as racism and sexism. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1767248542651781271"}"></div></p>
<p>Abbott and others have told the public before that they are frightened and that they are unable to do their jobs because of the dangers involved. If we start to take them seriously, we resist both the normalisation of incivility in public life and the comfortable notion that politics is now a level playing field.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225620/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Orly Siow has previously received an ESRC scholarship for research on press coverage of Black and ethnic minority women as political candidates.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sofia Collignon received funding from the British Academy /Leverhulme and was part of the ESRC -funded research team behind the Representative Audit of Britain survey. </span></em></p>Frank Hester’s words are only the latest extreme example of the constant discrimination black and ethnic minority women face when they enter public life.Orly Siow, Associate Senior Lecturer in Gender Studies, Lund UniversitySofia Collignon, Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1486672020-10-30T10:39:26Z2020-10-30T10:39:26ZWhy South Africans need to give political parties more money<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365522/original/file-20201026-17-14d1w06.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">African National Congress treasurer Paul Mashatile wants more money for political parties from the government. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Antonio Muchave/Sowetan/Gallo Images/Getty Images)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If South Africans fear that funding political parties is a waste of money, they may care to think about the costs of not funding them. But, if they want value for their cash, the way parties get money needs to change.</p>
<p>Party funding is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH4nH34uCnw&feature=push-fr&attr_tag=uukiywZT28kHrB_G%3A6">back on the agenda</a> in South Africa after the treasurer of the governing African National Congress (ANC), Paul Mashatile, said taxpayers needed to <a href="https://www.enca.com/news/anc-calls-greater-public-funding-political-parties">give parties more money</a>. Finance minister Tito Mboweni says he is willing to <a href="https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/mboweni-funding-anc-state-capture-11-october-2020/">listen to the argument</a>. Almost inevitably, parts of the media known better for jerking knees than for thought <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7g6X74Tc7k">denounced this as a waste</a>.</p>
<p>Mashatile’s reason for asking for more money was interesting. He said that, since Parliament <a href="https://www.gov.za/documents/political-party-funding-act-6-2018-english-setswana-28-jan-2019-0000">passed a law</a> in January 2019 forcing parties to say who their large funders were, private donors were <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7g6X74Tc7k">reluctant to give</a> (despite the fact that the law has yet to take effect). </p>
<p>Usually, big donors love nothing more than to reveal that they have given to a cause – they might hope for a plaque or ceremony. And, if they are giving out of a sense of political commitment, they might be proud for the world to know they are supporting something in which they believe.</p>
<p>If, as Mashatile says, they run for the hills if they believe their identity will be known, it is unlikely that they are giving because they want to help. Their more likely aim is to buy influence.</p>
<h2>Buying political influence</h2>
<p>When <a href="https://www.elections.org.za/content/Political-party-funding/Private-funding-of-political-parties/">a law</a> forcing parties to say where they got their funds was first floated, it was the official opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) which <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-south-africas-new-political-party-funding-bill-is-good-news-for-democracy-99034">balked</a>. It said its donors would stop giving if their names were mentioned because they would fear victimisation by the government.</p>
<p>The claim never had much credibility. A government determined to victimise funders of its opponents would have long ago found out who these donors were. It is not likely to victimise them if what it could find out for itself is now on an official form.</p>
<p>It now turns out that it is the governing party, the ANC, not any in opposition, which says its donors are being scared away. This shows that the desire for secrecy is not born of a fear of victimisation but a dread of being found out. The Democratic Alliance is the party of government in the <a href="https://www.da.org.za/government/western-cape">Western Cape province</a> and more than a few municipalities, raising the possibility that its donors wanted secrecy not because they were scared of bullying, but because they did not want the public to know that they were channelling money to parties in local and provincial government.</p>
<p>All this sends a clear message. Private party funding is more often than not an attempt by the moneyed to ensure that government serves them, <a href="http://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/iss-sida-2.pdf">not voters</a>. While some give because they believe, many donors want to turn democracies into their property.</p>
<p>In South Africa, money has been used to buy political influence for <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-corruption-in-south-africa-is-deeply-rooted-in-the-countrys-past-and-why-that-matters-144973">at least two centuries</a>. During the democratic period – since the end of apartheid <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/business/south-africa-economy-apartheid.html">in 1994</a> – cash has been repeatedly given to parties and politicians. It is naïve to believe that the purpose is not to ensure that the politicians in government listen to the people who fund them, not those who vote for them.</p>
<p>Since parties always need money – lots of it – forcing them to depend on private money inevitably means throwing them into the hands of donors who will demand favours for their cash. So, South Africans either have generous public funding for parties, or they might as well not bother to vote because whoever they choose will serve not them but whoever has bought them.</p>
<h2>Problematic funding model</h2>
<p>But, while the ANC is on strong ground when it urges more public funding, its argument is much shakier if it wants that to happen under the rules which now govern funding.</p>
<p>South Africa’s taxpayers already fund parties. A fund managed by the Independent Electoral Commission gives them money in proportion to their <a href="https://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/">last election result</a>.</p>
<p>The first problem with this is that accountability for the funds does not seem strong. There is no point in giving parties public money to ensure that they serve the people unless they are held to account for how they spend it. Since parties can only use the money for specified purposes, they must give the electoral commission annual financial statements to show how they spent it. But no one outside the commission sees these.</p>
<p>In Germany, which Mashatile mentioned as a model, parties do receive generous funding but they must produce detailed, publicly available reports on how the funds are spent so that people can see <a href="https://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/germany.php#:%7E:text=Germany%20has%20provided%20public%20funding,causing%20frequent%20changes%20in%20legislation">how their money is being used</a>.</p>
<p>More importantly, perhaps, the formula used in South Africa (and many other countries) is unfair (and happens to favour the ANC). Parties are funded in proportion to their share of the vote at the last elections. The reason seems like common sense: it does not seem right to vote as much money to a party which wins 57% of the vote as one which scrapes only one seat.</p>
<p>But the formula assumes that voters feel the same way now as they did at the last election. They may have changed their mind and most funding may be going to a less popular party. Most important in South Africa is that, since 1994, breakaways from parties (particularly the ANC) have been motors of democratic progress: breakaways from the ANC have reduced its share of the vote <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africas-2019-poll-showed-dangerous-signs-of-insiders-and-outsiders-121758">since 2009</a>, making politics more competitive and open to voter influence. The formula means a breakaway which took 40% of the party with it would get no funding until after the next election.</p>
<h2>Need for change</h2>
<p>This argues for a formula which does not reward success at the last elections. There are more than a few ideas on how that could work.</p>
<p>One is that parties get subsidies not in proportion to their votes but to the number of people who support them financially. The size of the donation would not matter – the apple seller who contributes a pittance counts for the same as the mogul who gives a fortune. This would force parties to persuade lots of people to fund them. And it would show how many people cared enough about a party to give it something – anything – to help it get public money. So, it tests current, not past, support.</p>
<p>Another builds on an idea already in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africans-are-finally-set-to-know-who-funds-their-political-parties-110843">yet to be implemented law</a>. It sets up a fund for multiparty democracy to which private donors can give if they want to support party politics. An independent board would invite parties to apply for these funds. In principle, a similar vehicle could be set up to distribute public money to parties.</p>
<p>These are only two ideas; there are more. But South Africa needs not only more party funding, but a new way of handing it out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148667/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Friedman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Since parties always need money, forcing them to depend on private funders means throwing them into the hands of donors who will demand favours for their cash.Steven Friedman, Professor of Political Studies, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1453332020-09-06T09:27:40Z2020-09-06T09:27:40ZWho stands to win or lose if South Africa were to hold all elections on the same day<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/355574/original/file-20200831-16-bc6bxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Failure to campaign due to COVID-19 has fuelled calls to synchronise polls.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EFE-EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South Africa usually follows an electoral schedule of national and provincial elections taking place two calendar years before the municipal elections. The next municipal elections should be held <a href="https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/elections/2321148/2021-municipal-elections-set-down-for-4-august-iec/">in 2021</a>, about 15 months after the national and provincial elections held <a href="https://www.elections.org.za/NPEDashboard/app/dashboard.html">in 2019</a>. </p>
<p>Now, for the first time, there’s discussion about <a href="https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/407507/anc-and-eff-agree-on-new-election-changes-for-south-africa-report/">synchronising all the elections</a>, <a href="https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/407507/anc-and-eff-agree-on-new-election-changes-for-south-africa-report/">prompted</a> by the governing African National Congress (ANC) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the third largest party. They want all elections to be held on the same day, presumably in 2024.</p>
<p>The Democratic Alliance (DA), the main opposition party, <a href="https://www.news24.com/citypress/news/anc-eff-agree-on-postponing-local-elections-20200613">does not</a> support the idea. Most smaller parties have not yet taken a public position on it.</p>
<p>The debate raises two important questions: the first, why now?; the second, who stands to benefit from the synchronisation? </p>
<p>Those in favour have presented several motivations. One is that doing so would result in <a href="https://www.news24.com/citypress/news/anc-eff-agree-on-postponing-local-elections-20200613">cost saving</a> for political parties and the Electoral Commission of SA.</p>
<p>Campaign fatigue, because of elections being held almost every 30 months, has also been mentioned. Both are perennial issues. The next question, therefore, is: why now?</p>
<h2>Not ready to campaign</h2>
<p>One can start with the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on politics in South Africa. </p>
<p>Most of the political parties’ preparations for the 2021 campaign <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-05-08-covid-19-could-impact-south-africas-2021-local-elections/">have been delayed</a> since the country went into lockdown in March, to curb the spread of the pandemic.</p>
<p>Moreover, the ANC has had to <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2020-03-16-all-anc-conferences-postponed-for-three-months/">postpone</a> its national general council conference, due to have been held in June. The council meets midway between the party’s five-yearly elective conferences, to evaluate progress in <a href="https://www.heraldlive.co.za/news/politics/2020-01-03-five-political-stories-that-will-shape-2020/">implementing the party’s conference resolutions</a>, among <a href="https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/understanding-the-ancs-national-general-council-ngc/">other things</a>. </p>
<p>The same happened with the DA. Its <a href="https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/politics/2329426/das-virtual-federal-congress-to-take-place-on-31-october/">federal congress</a> and the party’s leadership elections have also been postponed. </p>
<p>The major parties are, therefore, not in a good position to wage election campaigns.</p>
<p>The ANC faces even more woes.</p>
<p>President Cyril Ramaphosa is at a delicate point in his efforts to turn the tide against corruption. Evidence is already emerging of a fight-back campaign by several leading ANC members, <a href="https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/zuma-rubbishes-ramaphosas-open-letter-to-anc-members/">including former president Jacob Zuma</a>, whose <a href="https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/politics/2351444/anc-nec-meeting-masina-demands-ramaphosas-resignation/">vested interests are threatened</a> by Ramaphosa’s anti-corruption drive. The decisions by the ANC’s national executive committee meeting at the end of August could be regarded as an endorsement of the Ramaphosa strategy and therefore a serious setback for its opponents. </p>
<p>Previous experiences of acrimonious nomination processes in the ANC during municipal elections raise red flags for a similar process in the near future. In the past, the process exposed deep divisions within the party, even <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-political-killings-have-taken-hold-again-in-south-africas-kwazulu-natal-143908">political killings</a>. </p>
<p>An election in 2021 would also pose a challenge for the parties as they could not yet successfully address the negative consequences of the 2016 municipal elections. These saw the ANC <a href="http://702.co.za/articles/15703/anc-s-losses-in-key-metros-high-on-agenda-at-nec-4-day-meeting">lose its absolute majorities</a> in Johannesburg, Tshwane, Nelson Mandela Bay and Ekhurhuleni metros.</p>
<p>At the same time, the DA’s coalitions and cooperation with the EFF in most of these metros <a href="https://theconversation.com/turmoil-in-south-africas-capital-city-points-to-the-need-to-overhaul-local-democracy-139565">have failed</a>. The EFF could not sustain its <a href="https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2018-08-30-eff-kingmaker-strategy-means-it-abdicates-any-duty-for-governance/">kingmaker role</a> in these the metros, and also failed to secure executive positions for its councillors. Neither of these parties has since improved its position in the metros.</p>
<p>Another development in favour of synchronisation is that the appetite of private donors for funding political parties is in decline, affecting their ability to finance election campaigns. The new legislation on <a href="https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/political-party-funding-bill-signed-law">political party funding</a>, which forces parties to disclose all donations <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-new-south-african-law-wont-end-the-toxic-mix-of-money-and-politics-121461">above R100,000</a>, removes the confidential nature of the relationship between funders and parties, and is expected to further discourage private funding for parties. </p>
<p>With this in mind, the parties expect to have less money to campaign in future. A reduction in the number of campaigns would therefore benefit them. At this stage it is almost impossible to predict the cost implications of a decline in private donations versus the financial gains of synchronised elections. </p>
<h2>Who would benefit from synchronisation?</h2>
<p>For parties participating simultaneously in elections at different levels, synchronisation would enable more centralised and coordinated election campaigns. The bigger parties which contest elections at all three levels would benefit the most. It would not reduce the number of candidates who would have to be nominated. It might even complicate coordination of several nomination processes at the same time. But it would be only once in five years instead of every 30 months.</p>
<p>For them, it would mean one nomination process for candidates, one publicity campaign, one process to produce election manifestos, and potentially only one campaign message. Human and financial resources could be used more effectively. </p>
<p>Currently, electoral legislation can accommodate all of this. What would have to change, however, would be section 159(1) of the <a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng.pdf">constitution</a>, to extend the five-year term for municipalities until 2024. The test would be whether the voters accepted a one-fits-all approach.</p>
<p>Based on past experiences, the majority of parties are <a href="http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Political-party-list/">registered for municipal elections only</a>. Thus, they would not share in these “economy of scale” benefits. Whether they would be disadvantaged by the bigger parties’ savings cannot be accurately predicted. That would depend on whether local campaigns were overtaken by national campaigns, or maintained a character of their own.</p>
<p>Smaller, local parties would most probably be disadvantaged by the bigger parties merging their campaigns at the different levels into one “national” campaign. Municipal issues would then receive much less attention and local parties might be “swamped” by the national character of the campaigns. National leaders could be more visible outside the national centres and make an impression on voters who were only used to their local candidates. </p>
<p>Were this to happen, it would see the demise of smaller local parties. But it would also reduce the irritation of having fragmented and unstable coalition governments which often depend on these parties.</p>
<h2>Splitting of votes</h2>
<p>The arguments presented so far presume that voters would be consistent in voting for the bigger parties in all three spheres. But if voters were motivated to split their votes and vote for different parties at the different levels, that would create opportunities for smaller parties to perform better.</p>
<p>Evidence shows that South Africans split their votes between the 2014 national and the 2016 municipal elections. Three metros in provinces controlled by the ANC voted for a DA coalition. In the <a href="https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/vote-splitting-the-new-voter-strategy/">2019 national and provincial elections</a> in both Gauteng and the Western Cape, about 3% of the DA supporters voted for the ANC at national level, but for the DA at provincial level.</p>
<p>There’s also the Constitutional Court <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2020-06-11-concourt-ruling-opens-door-for-independent-candidates-to-stand-for-election-in-sa/">judgment in June 2020</a> which instructed Parliament to amend the electoral system to allow for independent candidates to contest national and provincial elections. It could change electoral practices in many respects. How that would happen is not easy to predict. But that change, coupled with election synchronisation, means a radical change in electoral dynamics can be expected in South Africa.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145333/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dirk Kotze does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The bigger parties which contest elections at all three levels would benefit the most – but voters might split their votes.Dirk Kotze, Professor in Political Science, University of South AfricaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1214612019-08-05T14:02:28Z2019-08-05T14:02:28ZWhy new South African law won’t end the toxic mix of money and politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286951/original/file-20190805-36390-hof6ek.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cyril Ramaphosa led the African National Congress to victory in May. A new law on political funding covers parties, not politicians.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA-EFE/Yeshiel Panchia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The grip of money on South African politics may be so tight that it could be impossible to govern – or seek to govern – unless you are beholden to private money. </p>
<p>Can a new law change that?</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201901/42188gon63politicalpartyfundingact6of2019.pdf">Political Party Funding Act</a> was signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africans-are-finally-set-to-know-who-funds-their-political-parties-110843">early this year</a>. It forces parties to disclose donations of R100 000 (US$6700) or more and sets up a <a href="http://www.casac.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Annexure-3.pdf">Multi-Party Democracy Fund</a> to which donors who want to support a range of parties can donate. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.elections.org.za/content/default.aspx">Independent Electoral Commission</a>, which will implement the law, decided that it would not come into force until <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/party-funding-act-5-mar-2019-0000">regulations</a> on how it will operate are drafted. It has now concluded hearing evidence from “interested parties” – mainly political parties and non-governmental organisations – on <a href="https://www.politicsweb.co.za/politics/conclusion-of-public-hearings-into-political-party">how to word the rules</a>.</p>
<p>Democracy campaigners have been pressing for this law for years. Until it was signed, South Africa had no laws governing <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-south-africas-new-political-party-funding-bill-is-good-news-for-democracy-99034">donations to parties</a>: the wealthy could give huge amounts to parties and were not obliged to reveal this.</p>
<h2>Toxic relationship</h2>
<p>In any democracy, such secrecy should trigger fears that government decisions will reflect not what voters want but what large donors require. In South Africa, the fear is particularly justified because the relationship between money and politics is close and toxic.</p>
<p>This is a product of the past and the transition to a new political order. Apartheid ensured that whites owned the large companies and so <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-south-africa-can-do-better-at-reversing-apartheids-legacies-116600">most of the wealth</a>. When black parties were allowed to <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/fw-de-klerk-announces-release-nelson-mandela-and-unbans-political-organisations">operate freely from 1990</a>, their only source of significant money (apart from aid donors and government funding <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-12-14-what-the-historic-party-funding-bill-means-for-sa-politics">from 1994</a>) was business. </p>
<p>This created huge openings for companies or their owners to <a href="https://theconversation.com/economic-exclusion-feeds-the-politics-of-patronage-in-south-africa-69996">buy cooperation</a>. The new law is meant to control this by forcing large donors to make their donations public. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/economic-exclusion-feeds-the-politics-of-patronage-in-south-africa-69996">Economic exclusion feeds the politics of patronage in South Africa</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The democracy fund may be partly inspired by corporations which donate openly to several parties as a social investment project. Public funding is allocated mainly in proportion to parties’ support at the last election, which favours big parties: the corporates use criteria which advantage smaller parties in the hope that this will “level the playing field”. The fund is meant to offer a larger vehicle for this democracy support.</p>
<p>Campaigners have welcomed the law as a step forward but are concerned that loopholes may make it possible to continue to buy party support: R100 000 is a generous ceiling. Ways are also needed to stop big donors giving multiple donations of just under R100 000 to circumvent the law; the Independent Electoral Commission was asked at the hearings to draft regulations to <a href="http://www.capetalk.co.za/articles/356635/cosatu-wants-r100k-political-party-donation-threshold-loophole-rescinded">curb this</a>.</p>
<p>They are right to be concerned about the limits of the law – but equally right to expect that, when it is enforced, voters will know more about who is funding parties, even though South Africa’s law offers less control than similar laws in some other democracies. But this may make little difference to the really toxic influence buying: the greatest threat to democracy is the money which buys politicians, not parties. And the law does not regulate this.</p>
<h2>Buying influence</h2>
<p>South Africa is trying to emerge from a decade in which private interests made deals with politicians and officials to make government work for them alone. The hearings of the commission of inquiry into <a href="https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/">“state capture”</a>, chaired by deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo, regale the country with evidence of abuse of public money and trust. </p>
<p>But party funding has been a minor player at the hearings – private interests mostly gained control of government by buying people, not parties. The much-reviled Gupta family, former President Jacob Zuma’s friends accused of having captured his administration for their own ends, did donate to parties. These <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Zille-explains-Gupta-donation-20130130">included</a> the official opposition, the DA. But, it allegedly gave far more to individuals.</p>
<p>Internal party elections are at least as much a problem as the national contest – black-owned companies in particular are repeatedly approached to fund contests for party office.</p>
<p>The problem has been emphasised by <a href="https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/explosive-cr17-leak-hits-ramaphosa-30347834">“leaked” emails</a> from within Ramaphosa’s ANC Presidency campaign, which are currently receiving media coverage. Ramaphosa’s opponents say they show he misled Parliament when he told it he was unaware of a donation from a company named at the commission. Whether or not this is true, the emails show an attempt to <a href="https://city-press.news24.com/News/cyril-ramaphosas-r440m-presidential-price-tag-20190722">raise very large sums</a> from private donors whose identity was not revealed because the law does not require this.</p>
<h2>Murky links</h2>
<p>These links between politicians and money are another product of past inequities. In the early 1990s, anti-apartheid activists emerged as a government in waiting. But they had no money and could not afford the lifestyle which matched their future role. Businesses and business people – some to help, some because they wanted influence – provided them with houses, cars and other passports to the middle class. </p>
<p>At the same time, white-owned businesses recognised that they needed black partners; the only candidates they knew were the political activists who exhorted them to end racism – and so activism became a route to company boards.</p>
<p>The pattern this created survives today. Links between politicians and private money are murky and raise perpetual doubts about whether political decisions respond to voters or patrons.</p>
<p>So pervasive is this mix of private wealth and public office that it is open to question whether it is possible to achieve a senior position in government without being beholden to private donors. Ramaphosa is a wealthy man and so are some of his political allies. If they cannot run a campaign which does not rely on wads of money from people who are never voluntarily named, why believe that anyone else can?</p>
<p>If Ramaphosa’s campaign funding were to cost him his presidency, he would no doubt be replaced by someone else who received large donations about which voters know nothing. This would apply even if the replacement led an opposition party. </p>
<p>The two next biggest parties are the DA, which is <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/political-party-funding-act-we-are-seeking-to-cure-what-is-being-exposed-before-the-zondo-commission-20190801">sceptical</a> of the Party Funding Act because it says its donors want anonymity to avoid reprisals. The other is the Economic Freedom Fighters, one of whose key funders owns a cigarette company which has been accused of improper <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-12-11-mazzottis-smoke-n-mirrors-a-matter-of-taxes-fraud-smuggling-and-cigarettes/">influence on the tax authorities</a>. </p>
<p>So, South African voters are likely to find that whoever governs them relies on donors whose names they do not know.</p>
<h2>Uphill battle</h2>
<p>The link to money will continue to damage South African politics unless the flow of undisclosed money to politicians ends. This depends far more on what parties do than on law. The ANC has told the Independent Electoral Commission it is determined to <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/anc-on-party-funding-we-are-destroying-one-another-through-influence-of-money-20190802">find ways of fixing its problem</a>, but it faces an uphill battle. Other parties, including the DA and Inkatha Freedom Party, which are in government in provinces and municipalities, have yet to acknowledge that they have a problem.</p>
<p>Given all this, South Africans will not know soon who pays for the politicians who are meant to serve them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121461/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Friedman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Secrecy over who funds political parties should trigger fears that government decisions will reflect the wishes of large donors.Steven Friedman, Professor of Political Studies, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1108432019-02-06T14:26:18Z2019-02-06T14:26:18ZSouth Africans are finally set to know who funds their political parties<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/256836/original/file-20190201-127151-13zixiz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A new law will promote transparency in the funding of political parties in South Africa.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EFE-EPA/Nic Bothma</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>South African President Ramaphosa has <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/ramaphosa-signs-bill-to-lay-bare-political-party-funding-20190122">finally signed</a> into law a new bill aimed at regulating the funding of political parties. It was approved by Parliament in <a href="https://ewn.co.za/2018/06/28/ncop-approves-political-party-funding-bill-ahead-of-national-polls">June 2018</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.parliament.gov.za/storage/app/media/Docs/bill/2abe630b-3d45-40ff-b588-462efa774d75.pdf">Political Party Funding Bill</a>, when it eventually becomes law on <a href="http://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/political-party-funding-bill-to-come-into-effect-on-1-april-iec/">April 1</a>, will enable South Africans to know who funds their political parties. </p>
<p>The new law is long overdue. It’s remarkable that the country didn’t regulate political party funding after the first democratic elections 25 years ago. The lack of action made South Africa <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-south-africas-new-political-party-funding-bill-is-good-news-for-democracy-99034">unique among democracies</a> for not regulating private political party funding. </p>
<p>Funding is crucial for the survival of political parties and their ability to campaign for elections. But this needs to be regulated because the electorate needs to know where funds are coming from. Countries that have introduced similar laws have done so to preserve their sovereignty as well as the integrity and autonomy of domestic politics. </p>
<p>Most countries have laws that encourage parties to disclose who their funders are. All ten of the largest democracies in the world have <a href="https://hsf.org.za/publications/hsf-briefs/political-party-funding-iv-the-global-picture">disclosure laws</a>. And the US <a href="http://www.gmfus.org/blog/2018/10/09/foreign-funding-threats-eus-2019-elections">bans foreign</a> funding in elections. </p>
<p>South Africa’s law enshrines these basic principles. But there’s concern around the timing of the bill as it won’t be operational before the country’s hotly contested elections due in May. Getting the administrative mechanisms in place for its implementation is likely to take longer. </p>
<p>It’s hard to dismiss the suspicion that the <a href="https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/mokonyane-used-bosasa-facilities-for-anc-campaign-statecaptureinquiry-told-19048849">scandal-ridden</a> governing party, the ANC, wanted to delay the Bill coming into effect to avoid having to disclose its funders before the poll. </p>
<p>For civil society activists who have struggled for transparency in party funding, the Bill cannot come into effect <a href="https://www.enca.com/news/ramaphosa-misses-political-party-funding-bill-deadline">soon enough</a>. The hope is that the legal obligation to disclose political party finding will bring more integrity to the country’s politics. </p>
<p>The obligation to disclose funders should also make it easier for civil society to keep political parties on their toes when it comes to their finances.</p>
<h2>The new law</h2>
<p>The Bill requires parties to disclose all donations over R100 000 from any one donor. It also prohibits donations from foreign governments or organs of state. </p>
<p>The Bill also has provisions that specifically aim to curb corruption. For example, it states that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a party may not accept a donation) that it knows or ought reasonably to have known, or suspected, originates from the proceeds of crime and must report that knowledge or suspicion to the Electoral Commission.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And it stipulates that “no person or entity may deliver a donation to a member of a political party other than for party political purposes” and that a member of a political party may only receive such a donation “on behalf of the party”. </p>
<p>Non-compliance with the new law can lead to a fine or a jail sentence of up to five years.</p>
<p>The Bill provides for a <a href="http://www.casac.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Annexure-3.pdf">multi-party democracy fund</a> to be established and managed by the country’s electoral commission to receive anonymous donations. These would then be distributed to parties represented in Parliament and in the provincial legislatures, according to a formula partly based on the relative size of each party’s representation. </p>
<p>The logic behind this is that these donations will help promote democracy.</p>
<p>It’s not clear how successful it will be. Given that donations to political parties are usually tied to promoting particular interests, it seems unlikely that donors will be rushing to give money to a fund that doesn’t represent their interests.</p>
<h2>Shortcomings</h2>
<p>There are some areas in which the Bill is inadequate. For example, it doesn’t go far enough in addressing sources of indirect funding, like subsidised <a href="http://themimu.info/sites/themimu.info/files/documents/Ref_Doc_Political_Parties_Access_to_Media_IDEA_Dec2014.pdf">access to media</a>. This is particularly important given <a href="https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/1991046/da-to-report-ramaphosa-to-bccsa-for-abusing-the-sabc/">complaints</a> that the governing African National Congress (ANC) enjoys unfair access to the country’s public broadcaster, the SABC. </p>
<p>Another shortcoming is that smaller parties have the most to lose from declaring their private funding, which is why the main opposition parties, the <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-09-29-00-court-rules-that-voters-must-know-who-funds-parties">Democratic Alliance</a> and the <a href="https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/south-africa/2018-03-28-mps-support-bill-for-political-parties-to-declare-their-funders/">Economic Freedom Fighters</a> have resisted the regulation of party funding for years. </p>
<p>The reason for this has to do with the fact that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/south-africas-anc-has-remained-dominant-despite-shifts-in-support-base-63285">ANC dominates party politics</a> in South Africa. In the last national elections in 2014, the party won <a href="http://www.elections.org.za/content/elections/results/2014-national-and-provincial-elections--national-results/">62.15% of the vote</a>. The two main opposition parties, the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), won 22.23% and 6.35%, respectively.</p>
<p>The funding of political parties is linked to size: all registered political parties get funding Represented Political Parties fund in proportion to their performance in the last elections. This means that most parties get very little from the fund compared to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-south-africas-new-political-party-funding-bill-is-good-news-for-democracy-99034">dominant ANC</a>. </p>
<p>The dominance of the ANC has another consequence too: funders of smaller parties would prefer to make donations in secret in case they face discrimination or are disadvantaged as a result of not supporting the ANC. </p>
<p>A final challenge that democratic countries have had to grapple with is how to curb the expectations of donors who often want a return on their investment, so to speak. This leads to scandals that corrode public morality and reduce trust in democracy.</p>
<p>Revealing the identities of the private funders of political party should become urgent priority given the web of corruption that’s been laid bare at the commission probing the <a href="https://www.sastatecapture.org.za/">capture of the South African state</a> by <a href="https://www.enca.com/news/rise-and-fall-gupta-empire">private business interests</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110843/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mia Swart receives funding from the National Research Foundation.
I am Research Director at the HSRC and Visiting Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand.</span></em></p>Countries that regulate political party funding do so to preserve their sovereignty and integrity of domestic politics.Mia Swart, Research director, Human Sciences Research CouncilLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1058052018-10-30T00:28:45Z2018-10-30T00:28:45ZNew Zealand politics: how political donations could be reformed to reduce potential influence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242843/original/file-20181029-76413-14ayvy9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=137%2C125%2C3730%2C2604&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New Zealand's government is considering looking into changes to the way political parties are funded, and areas such as donation transparency could be part of the discussion.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the aftermath of the <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12147674">controversy</a> surrounding former MP Jami-Lee Ross and opposition National party leader Simon Bridges, discussions have focused on possible reforms of political donations in New Zealand.</p>
<p>My colleagues <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=12148664">Bryce Edwards</a> and <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/108071655/Line-between-political-access-and-political-influence-is-porous">Michael Macaulay</a> have raised the issue of taxpayer funding of political parties. So too has <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12147251">Minister of Justice Andrew Little</a>. </p>
<p>Green Party MP Marama Davidson has suggested the <a href="https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/369328/greens-urge-political-donation-reform">donation threshold</a> for the disclosure of a donor’s name and address be lowered from NZ$15,000 to NZ$1,000. She has also proposed banning foreign donations outright and capping individual donations at NZ$35,000.</p>
<p>Several of these proposals warrant further discussion and contextualisation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-politics-foreign-donations-and-political-influence-105489">New Zealand politics: foreign donations and political influence</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Donations and foreign money</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09615768.2017.1351661">Foreign interference in domestic politics</a> is an increasing phenomenon worldwide.</p>
<p>Currently in New Zealand foreign donations to a party of up to NZ$1,500 are permissible. Moreover, foreign donations below this amount are not individually or collectively disclosed. </p>
<p>It would be easy for a foreign state or corporate body seeking political influence to channel a large number of donations into the system just under the threshold via numerous proxies. Whether such interference has been happening is unclear, since New Zealanders do not know how much money currently comes in to political parties via foreign actors. </p>
<p>Even if foreign donations are not a problem now, one could rapidly develop. A strong argument can be made that <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09615768.2017.1351661">foreign money has no place in democracy</a>, including New Zealand’s. </p>
<p>New Zealand would not be going out on an international limb by banning foreign donations. Foreign donations to political parties are not permissible in the [<a href="https://fullfact.org/law/most-non-uk-citizens-cant-donate-uk-political-parties/">United Kingdom</a>, <a href="https://www.sipo.ie/en/Guidelines/Donation-Guidelines/Guidelines-for-Political-Parties/Prohibited-Donations.html">Ireland</a> and <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/">the United States</a>. They are also <a href="http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=ces&document=part6&lang=e">banned in Canada</a> but unfortunately a <a href="https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-why-wont-the-liberals-stop-foreign-donors-from-influencing-our-elections">significant loophole</a> exists. Australia is currently in the process of banning foreign donations.</p>
<h2>Lowering threshold for anonymous donations</h2>
<p>As noted, the threshold below which political donations can be anonymous could be lowered. A lower threshold would make it more difficult to evade name disclosure rules by splitting donations and attributing each part to a different donor. </p>
<p>Splitting may be what happened to the <a href="https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018667446/who-is-zhang-yikun-the-alleged-donor-of-100-000-to-national">alleged NZ$100,000 Yikun Zhang donation</a>. The NZ$1,000 threshold proposed by the Greens would be a huge improvement on the status quo. A donor of NZ$100,000 seeking to evade legislation and to remain anonymous would have to coordinate 100 individual donors, rather than seven. </p>
<p>But New Zealand could go lower still, to NZ$200, without being radical. Giving NZ$200 to a political party is huge for an ordinary New Zealander, and the reality is only a very small minority would need to disclose their names under such a law.</p>
<p>There is international precedent for setting much lower thresholds for anonymity than the Greens propose. For example, in Canada, the <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/party-financing">maximum amount of an anonymous donation</a> was set at C$200 in 2015, while <a href="https://www.sipo.ie/en/Guidelines/Donation-Guidelines/Guidelines-for-Political-Parties/Prohibited-Donations.html">in Ireland</a> it is currently €100.</p>
<h2>Donor privacy versus transparency</h2>
<p>One concern with non-anonymity is that it delivers public transparency at the cost of private donor privacy. Currently the <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM307519.html">Electoral Act 1993</a> contains a mechanism for anyone wanting to donate to a political party and not wanting their identity disclosed to either the public or to the party receiving the donation. To obtain such anonymity, the donation needs to be more than NZ$1,500. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.elections.org.nz/home">Electoral Commission</a> aggregates all such donations. It passes them on to parties at regular intervals. It does not identify the dollar amount of individual donations, or the number or names of donors.</p>
<p>Not many donors use this protected disclosure avenue. For example, between September 2015 and June 2018, the commission passed on only NZ$150,000 in anonymised money to parties <a href="https://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/plain-page/attachments/donations_protected_from_disclosure_-_general_election_2017.pdf">via this channel</a>. At the same time amounts well in excess of NZ$10 million were passed on by donors identifiable to political parties (but not necessarily to the public). </p>
<p>A preference for identifiable channels suggests current donors get value from non-anonymity. It implies most donors feel they are buying something. The fact that donors feel they are buying something should be cause for concern.</p>
<h2>Capping donations and individualising donors</h2>
<p>The Greens have suggested NZ$35,000 as a maximum cap on donations. Again, New Zealand could go much lower without being out of step with other countries. For example, in Canada donations to each political party are <a href="https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/party-financing">capped at C$1500 a year</a>. Like Canada, Ireland has a <a href="https://www.sipo.ie/en/Guidelines/Donation-Guidelines/Guidelines-for-Political-Parties/Prohibited-Donations.html">maximum annual cap of €2500</a>. </p>
<p>However, Geoff Simmons, leader of the <a href="https://www.top.org.nz/">Opportunities Party</a>, has argued that a cap would make it <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/26-10-2018/the-greens-proposed-donation-ban-would-serve-to-ban-new-parties-from-parliament/">difficult for small parties to get started</a>. Simmons’ party was kick-started by large donations from <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/99839970/TOP-loses-leader-Gareth-Morgan-and-three-other-candidates-in-matter-of-hours">multi-millionaire Gareth Morgan</a>, who was also the party’s first leader.</p>
<p>Another possibility for the reform agenda is the Canadian approach of only permitting donations from individual people. Corporate and trade union donations are banned. However this proposal is unlikely to be popular with neither National, which receives considerable corporate donations, nor Labour, which traditionally gets significant trade union funding.</p>
<p>All these proposals, inevitably, have pros and cons and possible unintended consequences. They are deserving of wide public debate. One hopes that the current government can provide the public with a credible forum for such discussions, and a clear pathway to sensible future reform.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105805/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Chapple does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the aftermath of a controversy surrounding New Zealand’s opposition party, discussions now focus on reform of party donations to avoid the potential of political influence.Simon Chapple, Director, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/990342018-07-05T15:38:26Z2018-07-05T15:38:26ZWhy South Africa’s new political party funding bill is good news for democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/226262/original/file-20180705-122253-bm9r5k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South Africa's 2016 municipal elections. A new bill aims to make party funding transparent.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cornell Tukiri/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Who funds South Africa’s political parties? The answer has always been shrouded in secrecy – both before and post 1994 when the country became a constitutional democracy. </p>
<p>South Africa is one of very few democracies in the world that don’t regulate the private funding of political parties. Most countries have laws that encourage parties to disclose who their funders are. <a href="https://hsf.org.za/publications/hsf-briefs/political-party-funding-iv-the-global-picture">All ten of the largest democracies</a> in the world have disclosure laws. </p>
<p>Legislation to control private funding in South Africa is long overdue for two reasons: its absence opens the door to corruption and citizens need to know who is paying the piper.</p>
<p>The country does have some regulation around public funding, including a <a href="http://www.elections.org.za/content/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=985">law</a> passed in 1997 that governs how <a href="http://www.elections.org.za/content/About-Us/Represented-Political-Parties/">Parliament</a> should distribute state funds to parties. </p>
<p>But, worldwide, it’s the anonymity of private funders that creates the most controversy. This is because parties typically spend much more private than public money during election campaigns.</p>
<p>The issue became a serious <a href="https://www.eisa.org.za/pdf/JAE3.2Kotze.pdf">debating topic in 2003</a> when the think tank, the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa <a href="http://www.ggln.org.za/media-and-publications/publications/state-of-local-governance/2017/itemlist/user/981-institutefordemocracyinsouthafricaidasa">(IDASA)</a>, began a campaign for greater transparency. Three years later the <a href="https://issafrica.org/">Institute of Security Studies</a> argued that the absence of enforceable party funding legislation was a threat to the integrity of South Africa’s democracy. The media has also been consistently critical of instances of corruption resulting from the lack of regulation of private funding. </p>
<p>Until recently there was insufficient political will to legislate private party funding. But that’s changing. The <a href="http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/PoliticalParty.pdf">Political Party Funding Bill</a>, which has been tabled for public comment, promises to inject much needed transparency into the upcoming campaigning for the country’s 2019 national and provincial elections.</p>
<p>A recent judgment passed down by the Constitutional Court has added urgency to the push for reform. The court called for the current law to be amended and for a clear policy to be developed on the private funding. </p>
<p>In its current form, the Bill would certainly strengthen transparency. Designed to regulate both private and public funding, the Bill proposes that donations from certain groups, such as foreign governments or organs of state, are banned. It also sets out what funding can be used for. </p>
<p>The hope is that the Bill won’t be watered down or rendered meaningless before it is passed.</p>
<h2>Change of heart</h2>
<p>Most of the country’s political parties have historically resisted disclosure. The African National Congress and the main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance have been particularly unsupportive of change. The DA even went as far as arguing that political parties are <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-09-29-00-court-rules-that-voters-must-know-who-funds-parties">entitled to privacy</a>, and that donors to smaller parties should be shielded from a possibly “vengeful” governing party.</p>
<p>Yet transparent governance and multiparty democracy depend on knowing where donations come from. That’s because private contributions to a political party are made in anticipation that the party will advance a particular social interest, policy or viewpoint. A public armed with information about who is providing candidates with the most support are in a much better position to detect any post-election special favours they may be given in return.</p>
<p>But, the ground has shifted. The <a href="http://www.anc.org.za/content/anc-welcomes-adoption-political-party-funding-bill-national-assembly">ANC</a> as well as the <a href="https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/party-funding-bill-adopted-in-national-assembly-20180327">DA</a> now agree that funders should be disclosed. Only the smaller opposition party, the Economic Freedom Fighters, is <a href="https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/south-africa/2018-03-28-mps-support-bill-for-political-parties-to-declare-their-funders/">refusing to support the Bill</a>.</p>
<h2>Public funding</h2>
<p>Public funding – provided by the state and dispensed by Parliament, allows political parties to conduct their daily activities. It’s designed to strengthen their capacity and give them a fair chance of success. It’s also meant to reduce their dependence on private funding. </p>
<p>But, how the money should be allocated is controversial. </p>
<p>Under the current system parties get money based on “proportionality” – that is on the basis of their performance in the last election. This meant that in 2015 the ANC got close to R60 million (USD4,3million$), the DA R16 million (USD$1,2 million) in 2015. </p>
<p>Under the currently system 90% of the money gets allocated based on how many MPs each party has in the National Assembly. The other 10% gets distributed among parties contesting in the provinces.</p>
<p>The proportionality approach is fairly universal. But there are problems with it. The most obvious problem is that it can entrench the dominance of the governing party and make it hard for smaller or newer parties to challenge it. </p>
<p>One way of getting around this would be to make sure that money should be distributed in a way that doesn’t prejudice smaller parties. </p>
<h2>Private funding</h2>
<p>Private funding is a much trickier proposition because support can come in many different forms and influence can be traded in many ways. For example, indirect funding can take the form of tax exemptions and subsidised access to media. </p>
<p>Proper scrutiny should therefore include monitoring indirect as well as direct political party funding.</p>
<p>The proposed law has been praised as <a href="https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/26684/?via=homepage-feature-card">progressive</a> although some of criticised it for requiring disclosure of all private donations of <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2018-06-22-00-toughen-up-party-funding-bill-ngos-say">R100 000</a>(US$7,300). This is seen as being <a href="https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/26684/?via=homepage-feature-card">too high</a> for the smaller parties.</p>
<p>The success of the Bill will depend on whether it’s watered down before it’s passed, and on how rigorously it’s implemented once it becomes law. Success will also depend on the public’s willingness to monitor party funding and to press for greater disclosure.</p>
<p>The country’s <a href="https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution-republic-south-africa-1996">Constitution</a> states that the Republic is founded on the values of “accountability, responsiveness and openness”. There can be no doubt that revealing party funding gives effect to the spirit of the Constitution.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mia Swart has received funding from the National Research Foundation and is a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institute.</span></em></p>Legislation to control the private funding of political parties in South Africa is long overdue.Mia Swart, Research director, Human Sciences Research CouncilLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/653432016-09-19T05:50:42Z2016-09-19T05:50:42ZFactCheck Q&A: Is Australia one of the few countries worldwide to accept foreign political donations?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138030/original/image-20160916-14303-18yx4dp.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Senator Bridget McKenzie, speaking on Q&A.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Q&A</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong>The Conversation is fact-checking claims made on Q&A, broadcast Mondays on the ABC at 9:35pm. Thank you to everyone who sent us quotes for checking via <a href="http://www.twitter.com/conversationEDU">Twitter</a> using hashtags #FactCheck and #QandA, on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/conversationEDU">Facebook</a> or by <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">email</a>.</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/msWc40SRCZw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Excerpt from Q&A, September 12, 2016. Watch from 1.40.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>TONY JONES: Sorry, to be fair, you still haven’t answered the question as to whether you think your party should not take foreign donations.</p>
<p>BRIDGET MCKENZIE: Yeah, I probably don’t. We’re one of the few countries in the world that does. <strong>– National Party Senator for Victoria Bridget McKenzie responds to journalist Tony Jones on the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4512304.htm">ABC’s Q&A program</a>, September 12, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie told Q&A that Australia was one of the few countries in the world that accepted foreign donations. </p>
<p>Is that true?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for a source to support her assertion, a spokesperson for Bridget McKenzie referred The Conversation to data collected by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, which <a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?id=246">shows that</a> of the 180 countries it listed, 114 ban foreign political donations. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.idea.int/">The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance</a> (International IDEA) is a Stockholm based intergovernmental body, of which Australia was a founding member. It maintains a political finance database covering political finance laws and regulations in 180 countries.</p>
<h2>Is Australia one of the few countries in the world that allows foreign donations?</h2>
<p>It is true Australia allows foreign donations but it’s a slight exaggeration to say it is among the few countries in the world to do this. </p>
<p>The chart below, created by the <a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?field=246">International IDEA database</a>, shows that of the 180 countries they researched, 114 countries ban donations from foreign interests to political parties. 55 do not and data is lacking for 11. </p>
<p>Australia belongs to the one third that do not ban foreign donations.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138032/original/image-20160916-14280-1dgy79z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138032/original/image-20160916-14280-1dgy79z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138032/original/image-20160916-14280-1dgy79z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138032/original/image-20160916-14280-1dgy79z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138032/original/image-20160916-14280-1dgy79z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138032/original/image-20160916-14280-1dgy79z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138032/original/image-20160916-14280-1dgy79z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138032/original/image-20160916-14280-1dgy79z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Which countries ban donations from foreign interests to political parties?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?field=246">International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Oceania, the region that includes Australia, has the <a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?field=246&region=9">lowest proportion</a> of countries that ban foreign donations. Only two countries out of 12 in Oceania (Papua New Guinea and Fiji) ban such donations. New Zealand allows foreign donations but limits them to NZ$1,500.</p>
<p>In contrast, <a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?field=246&region=9">33 of 37 countries</a> in Asia and <a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?field=246&region=50">31 of 44 countries</a> in Europe ban foreign political donations. </p>
<p>Democracies most similar to Australia, such as the <a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/country.cfm?id=77">UK</a>, <a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/country.cfm?id=231">US</a> and <a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/country.cfm?id=37">Canada</a>, all ban foreign donations.</p>
<h2>Other common restrictions on political donations</h2>
<p>The International IDEA data also show that of the 180 countries on which data is collected:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?field=253">87 countries</a> ban donations to political parties from corporations with government contracts or partial government ownership. (Australia does not). </li>
<li><a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?field=248">46 countries</a> ban corporate donations to political parties. (Australia does not).</li>
<li><a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?id=257">45 countries</a> ban trade union donations to political parties. (Australia does not). </li>
<li><a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?id=266">69 countries</a> cap donations to political parties in relation to an election, regardless of the source. (Australia does not).</li>
<li><a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?field=284">54 countries</a> place limits on the amount a political party can spend – including Canada, New Zealand and the UK, which also limit election campaign spending by non-party organisations. In Australia, <a href="http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/announcements/panel_of_experts_-_political_donations">NSW</a> and the <a href="http://www.elections.act.gov.au/funding_and_disclosure/new_electoral_campaign_finance_laws_in_the_act2">ACT</a> have such spending limits, while in <a href="https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/V/A/2013/ELECTORAL%20(FUNDING%20EXPENDITURE%20AND%20DISCLOSURE)%20AMENDMENT%20ACT%202013_51.aspx">South Australia</a> expenditure caps apply to all parties that opt into public funding. </li>
<li><a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?id=270">120 countries</a>, including Australia, provide direct public funding for political parties. This can include annual administrative funding, as in European countries, as well as campaign funding. </li>
<li><a href="http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?field=279&region=-1">65 countries</a>, including Australia, provide tax benefits for political parties, candidates or donors. </li>
</ul>
<p>The High Court has recently <a href="http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-would-the-constitution-need-to-be-changed-to-ban-political-donations-from-unions-65463">decided two important cases</a> about regulation of political donations in Australia. In Unions NSW the Court struck down legislation imposing a blanket ban on political donations from corporations or unions or others not on the electoral roll. In McCloy, the Court upheld caps on political donations and a ban on donations from property developers.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Bridget McKenzie was slightly exaggerating to say that Australia is one of the few countries in the world to accept foreign political donations.</p>
<p>Of the countries for which we have evidence, Australia belongs to the one third that do not ban such donations. <strong>– Marian Sawer</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a sound FactCheck. I have reviewed it and the author presents a fair and accurate view of the data from International IDEA. </p>
<p>There may be constitutional issues in banning foreign political donations in Australia. The High Court has <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/58.html">struck down</a> a scheme in NSW that banned donations from corporations, unions and non-citizens. On the other hand, the High Court <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/34.html">upheld</a> a NSW scheme that imposed yearly caps on political donations and banned donations from property developers, due to the history of corruption in NSW. </p>
<p>So any ban on political donations has to be carefully circumscribed to be compatible with our constitutional freedom of political communication. <strong>– Yee-Fui Ng</strong></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65343/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marian Sawer has received funding from the Australian Research Council for the Democratic Audit of Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie said Australia is one of the few countries in the world to accept foreign political donations. Is that true?Marian Sawer, Emeritus Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/635632016-08-05T12:10:49Z2016-08-05T12:10:49ZHuge rise in Labour membership figures show Corbyn’s strength<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133142/original/image-20160804-484-3zzowa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">e d o</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/theweeklybull/21349057862/in/photolist-ywxv7w-x1Z4nD-CewuES-yyqYbH-Jgq66N-JtbiFd-yyeasz-EvfFDy-ywxtFW-xKhbZj-CmMUWE-yfSyHf-ywxrJQ-yxuLLR-yfYN5x-xABhMt-yvb5cd-Ed6gch-xABoEv-y9n52T-ywxvSj-yfYMCk-yvb953-xAtfoY-y1qw42-JzwvUk-HDmtr6-HDqhEj-HDmqj4-HDmq7k-Jqyk8Y-HDmqwZ-JzwvoR-HDmuC4-J9RgLh-J9Rgb9-JsHstD-HDmso4-J9Rh5y-HDmmwV-J9RgtJ-yyqS3a-GJeuLW-xAEXbC-J9RfmJ-GLt6EV-yxGB6p-GLt6in-Gg3ZZV-GJeun9">The Weekly Bull</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For party funding researchers, the year after a general election can produce days of excitement akin to Christmas. If your idea of fun is rifling through the accounts of political parties and updating long pored over spreadsheets, it’s a thrilling time. </p>
<p>This year has been a vintage one, beginning as it did with news of Labour’s near <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-spent-600-on-chicken-suits-for-the-2015-election-campaign-figures-show-a6822676.html">£600 bill</a> for chicken suits and continuing with the more serious story of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conservative-election-expenses-saga-explained-59484">Conservative election spending</a>.</p>
<p>Now the yearly party accounts for 2015 have been released, shedding some light on one of the biggest questions in Britain this summer: is Labour thriving or disintegrating under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn?</p>
<h2>Signing up</h2>
<p>Anyone with a passing interest in politics can tell you that Labour had an eventful 2015 (and 2016). In the 12 months since Corbyn was elected by a huge majority, buoyed by a flood of new <a href="https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/">members</a> and supporters (who paid £3 to vote in the last leadership election), there has been almost constant arguing. The majority of his shadow cabinet resigned in the wake of the EU referendum and now a second leadership contest is underway.</p>
<p>But these latest accounts highlight the Corbyn effect. They show that Labour raised a whopping £9,532,000 in membership subscriptions in 2015 (compared to the Conservatives’ £823,000). Labour has long raised the most among the political parties, and subscriptions have been increasing steadily since 2010. But to put this in context, the party recorded raising £5,971,000 in the 2014 accounts – a significantly lower amount. </p>
<p>That’s even before the huge influx of members after the latest leadership election was announced.</p>
<p>Of course the figures can’t provide detail on why people have joined and whether they support or oppose Corbyn. But they help us understand the financial transformation of the Labour party. What is most noticeable from these figures is the vast rise in money raised through membership fees.</p>
<p>What little we know about the new members includes the fact that they don’t tend to get <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/mass-membership-labour-social-movement-community">actively involved</a> in campaigning for the Labour party. But we can see that they are certainly more than paying their way.</p>
<p>The accounts also show that donations to the Labour party continued to rise in 2015, leaving it in a good financial position. However, it’s too soon to put paid to fears that donations would drop off under Corbyn. Most of this money will have been raised pre-Corbyn for the general election. Labour party income also tends to rise and fall with the general election cycle. We should be wary of reading too much into donation patterns in the short term.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/133143/original/image-20160804-478-j9crm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Corbyn attends a climate change rally in November 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/131362601@N02/22780128073/">Matthew Kirby</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That said, even if donations do drop off now, Corbyn (and his accountants) might take comfort in the fact that some of this shortfall can be made up by the membership fees of burgeoning Labour rank and file. Though it should be noted that these impressive figures still only account for about 18% of Labour’s total 2015 income.</p>
<h2>A changing party</h2>
<p>These accounts are also a representation of what we might understand as the tension between old Labour members and new Labour members. Membership dues have nearly doubled and the likelihood is that the 2016 accounts will show a further rise. These figures are a further confirmation that we are, to all intents and purposes, looking at a new Labour party. With all the challenges that this presents organisationally.</p>
<p>It’s worth noting that although the Conservatives outspent the Labour party at the general election, the figures show that Labour continued its streak (from 2010 onwards) of raising – and spending – more money for the financial year overall (£51,153,000 to £41,887,000). Further evidence that simply having money isn’t everything, it’s what you do with it that counts.</p>
<p>Corbyn often looks at his strongest when he is addressing party members, and he in turn seems to energise them. As these figures show – they certainly repay the favour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Power receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>Morale may be low among parliamentarians, but newly released accounts offer reasons to be cheerful.Sam Power, Doctoral researcher, Sussex Centre for the Study of Corruption, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/593662016-05-29T20:59:34Z2016-05-29T20:59:34ZAustralians care about political finance – and they want to see the system tightened<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124060/original/image-20160526-17530-13ywndh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Political finance is an issue where there is a lot of agreement in Australia among people who vote for different parties.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Money makes the world of politics go around and, as recent scandals afflicting both major political parties have shown, keeping it clean isn’t easy. Our <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/political-finance-in-australia">series on Australia’s system of political finance</a> examines its regulation, operation and possible reforms, starting today with an examination of public attitudes.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Debates around <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-liberals-concealed-illegal-donors-before-2011-election-win-20160323-gnpsn6.html">breaches</a> – and reform – of Australia’s system of political finance are usually conducted by elected politicians or party officials, media pundits, or academic experts. </p>
<p>These are people who have easy access to the media, so we get to read or hear their views. So, we know fairly well what they think. We know much less about what ordinary Australians think about how their politics is financed. </p>
<p>Every time there’s a scandal, politicians from unaffected parties talk about the public’s outrage. But how much do people actually care?</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10361146.2014.989810?#.V0V-o01f1i4">recently published study</a>, I investigated what ordinary Australians think and feel about the financing of politics. This research drew on a survey designed to be broadly representative of the national population. It provides the basis for answering some basic but important questions about public opinion on political finance. </p>
<h2>How much do people care?</h2>
<p>The survey asked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How much priority would you like to see your state and the federal government give to reforming political finance laws?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Just over a third of respondents (34%) thought reform should be a “high priority” for Australian governments. A further 52% considered it a “medium priority”. Only 14% said reforming political finance laws should be a “low priority”. </p>
<p>The survey also asked respondents to rate the current financing system. Is it “broken and needs to be replaced”? Does it have “some problems” that need to be repaired? Or, is it “alright the way it is”?</p>
<p>A small fraction (7%) of respondents were satisfied with the status quo. Most people (73%) were eager to see reform. About 20% thought a root-and-branch upheaval was needed. </p>
<p>Clearly, the public do care about political finance and they see flaws in the current system. But they don’t think there’s a crisis in political finance. Figuratively, a new car is not needed – just a competent mechanic. </p>
<h2>What reforms do people want?</h2>
<p>We can’t expect ordinary people to know the details of political finance laws. But if they are told some facts about current laws, they may have views about the direction reform should take.</p>
<p>With this approach in mind, the survey sought respondents’ views on several mooted reforms, after providing them with details about the federal laws in that area. The results are summarised below:</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-8RbMR" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8RbMR/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="380"></iframe>
<p>Overall, it appears ordinary Australians support tighter regulation of political donations and spending. The vast majority are likely to oppose the idea that regulations should be <a href="https://theconversation.com/power-imbalance-why-we-dont-need-more-third-party-regulation-2304">loosened or removed</a>. </p>
<h2>How much does partisanship matter?</h2>
<p>We might expect that people’s attitudes on political finance issues will reflect their partisan preferences. </p>
<p>We might think, for instance, that a typical Liberal voter worries more about the effects of trade union donations than a typical Labor voter. We might expect Labor supporters to worry more about corporate donations than Liberal voters. And we might expect supporters of minor parties and independents to be most disillusioned with the system – and worried about both corporate and union donations.</p>
<p>To test this hypothesis, I analysed the statistical relationship between respondents’ party preference and their opinions about political financing. I found partisanship is only a weak predictor of respondents’ attitudes.</p>
<p>A better predictor of how ordinary people feel about such matters, including what kinds of reform they would like to see, is the strength of their scepticism about the current system. </p>
<p>Strong critics, irrespective of their preferred party, worry about corporate and union donations. They want radical reform. Weak critics are less worried about donations and, unsurprisingly, less eager for change. </p>
<p>My study shows political finance is an issue where there is a lot of agreement among people who vote for different parties. This is unusual for Australian politics, but such broad agreement on reform by politicians <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/the-crunch:-arthur-sinodinos-and-chris-bowen/7447480">seems unlikely</a> in a hyperpartisan enviroment.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Catch up on other articles in the series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/political-finance-in-australia">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59366/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zim Nwokora has received funding from the Institute of Public Administration Australia and the Electoral Commission of NSW for academic research on political finance. </span></em></p>Every time there’s a scandal involving political finance, politicians from unaffected parties talk about the public’s outrage. But how much do people actually care?Zim Nwokora, Lecturer in Politics and Policy, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/481832015-09-30T04:43:37Z2015-09-30T04:43:37ZWhat drives corruption in Malawi and why it won’t disappear soon<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96667/original/image-20150929-30970-1jtu5oe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malawian President Peter Mutharika has promised to fight the corruption that has seen donors withdraw their support for his impoverished nation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Eldson Chagara</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is now two years since Malawi was rocked by its biggest government corruption scandal in history. The systematic looting of public coffers by civil servants, private contractors and politicians saw them steal <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2014/02/malawi-s-cashgate-scandal">US$31 million</a> from government coffers. </p>
<p>It is estimated that about <a href="http://gppreview.com/2014/01/06/cashgate-shakes-malawi-and-donor-confidence/">35%</a> of government funds have been stolen over the past decade. The impoverished country’s national budget for 2013-14 was about US$1.3 billion (<a href="http://www.nyasatimes.com/2013/06/21/malawi-mps-approve-k630-5bn-national-budget-for-201314/">630.5 billion Kwachas</a>) at today’s exchange rate.</p>
<p>But has the country learnt anything from its biggest scandal that saw donors withdraw support?</p>
<p>The University of Malawi’s Blessings Chinsinga recently pointed out that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… efforts to root out corruption do not stick because the existing institutional milieu makes it almost impossible to introduce changes that can effectively stamp out corruption.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The observation is instructive in that the scandal spans two political administrations. Malawi was led by the late president <a href="https://books.google.co.za/books?id=iIFwWH8aXFYC&pg=PA35&dq=President+Bingu+wa+Mutharika,+profile&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwA2oVChMI9viuy5ecyAIVAUwUCh0eLQze#v=onepage&q=President%20Bingu%20wa%20Mutharika%2C%20profile&f=false">Bingu wa Mutharika</a> in 2004 and the scandal unravelled on the watch of <a href="http://mg.co.za/article/2013-10-11-joyce-banda-sacks-cabinet-after-corruption-scandal">Joyce Banda</a> in 2013. </p>
<h2>Fertile ground for corruption</h2>
<p>A number of factors contribute to the current state of affairs.</p>
<p>There is no clear distinction between a party in power and government activities in Malawi, unlike in established democracies. In Malawi, the party in power is the de facto government.</p>
<p>In Malawi, a party in power calls itself <em>boma</em> (a government). Ordinary Malawians look at abuse of state resources by those in power as acceptable. It is almost impossible to tell a party in power from the government.</p>
<p>Even more serious is the fact that political parties in Malawi are not mandated to declare their <a href="https://eisa.org.za/wep/malparties3.htm">sources of funding</a>. This breeds corruption and fosters abuse of public resources. This is not unique to Malawi. But in countries like Botswana, hailed as one of the model democracies on the continent, they at least have a debate on <a href="http://en.starafrica.com/news/botswana-mps-adopt-political-party-funding-motion.html">political party funding</a>. Debates are also taking place in <a href="http://www.arabianjbmr.com/pdfs/NG_VOL_2_11/1.pdf">Nigeria</a> and <a href="http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/review/hsrc-review-march-2013/in-search-of-a-newparty-funding-model">South Africa</a>, respectively the continent’s largest and second-largest economies. </p>
<p>Another contributing factor is that after 21 years of multiparty democracy, governance in Malawi remains heavily centralised. Although the country has been independent since 1964, it only became a democracy in 1994.</p>
<p>Until then, it had been a one-party state decreed by its first post-colonial leader Kamuzu Banda, who banned political parties. He became president for life in 1971. Since 1994, the country has had local government representation for only six years – from 1999 to 2004 and from 2014 to now. </p>
<p>The central government has been reluctant to relinquish some of its powers. The president makes even the smallest of decisions and undertakes mundane tasks that should be reserved for line ministries. This encourages a system of patronage.</p>
<p>Lastly, government contracts, tenders and board memberships all go to sympathisers of the party in power and not necessarily to the best bidder or the most competent applicant. Government sympathisers or ruling party members get contracts regardless of their levels of competence.</p>
<p>This unfairly benefits the incumbents and weakens opposition parties. Businesspeople are afraid of funding opposition parties because they could lose state contracts and other business opportunities.</p>
<h2>Scale and depth of corruption exposed</h2>
<p>Malawians have always known that corruption is <a href="http://www.nyasatimes.com/2015/08/02/corruption-worsening-in-malawi-survey-funded-by-irish-aid/">rife</a> in the country. But the sheer size of the Cashgate scandal, both in terms of the amount and the wide number of people involved, has shown how deeply rooted the problem is.</p>
<p>The involvement of the country’s political class in the scandal is in stark contradiction to their penchant for standing on political campaign podiums promising to fight corruption with all their might.</p>
<p>Most of the people implicated in the Cashgate scandal were either members of the then-ruling <a href="http://country.eiu.com/article.aspx?articleid=1253195309&Country=Malawi&topic=Politics&subtopic=Forecast&subsubtopic=Election+watch&u=1&pid=1093513093&oid=1093513093&uid=1">People’s Party</a> or its sympathisers.</p>
<p>There is an unwritten rule in Malawi that successful businesspeople align themselves with the governing party in order to protect their property and gain more contracts. </p>
<p>An aunt of Oswald Lutepo, thus far the main Cashgate <a href="http://mwnation.com/lutepo-slapped-with-11yrs-ihl/">convict</a> and serving 11 years in jail, was heard in court lamenting that her nephew was advised that he did not need to join politics as he was already a successful businessman and multimillionaire. At the time of his arrest Lutepo was deputy director of recruitment in the People’s Party.</p>
<p>The aunt’s lament is instructive: people join politics in Malawi mainly to make money. In terms of this logic, the 37-year-old Lutepo was already a millionaire. He should have stayed out of it. </p>
<p>But he could not escape the lure of more riches that flow from being close to those in power. He knew the unwritten rule for success in Malawi only too well: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you are unsuccessful, support the ruling party because this is where opportunities are. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Malawi is still learning to cope without support from donors and the jury is still out on whether it has learnt anything from its biggest scandal. A recent article in <a href="http://africanarguments.org/2015/09/03/malawi-wholl-remember-cashgate/">African Arguments</a> underlines the hopeless feeling that Cashgate has left among most Malawians:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Malawi’s self-enriching officials need to know they will be judged not just by an imperfect judicial system, but by generation upon future generation of their compatriots.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48183/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jimmy Kainja does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Malawi appears to have learnt nothing from the biggest state corruption scandal that rocked the country two years ago, leading to donors withdrawing their support. The same conditions still remain.Jimmy Kainja, Lecturer in Media and Communications, University of MalawiLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.