January 23, 2007
By Tesfaye Habisso
The issue of political finance or the financing of politics is a very important and essential aspect of state politics. A sustainable democratic system demands that this facet of political existence is given particular attention. Democratic politics cannot proceed without financial resources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there is any debate in Ethiopia since the last decade or so which has never died down, then, it is the question of state funding of political parties in the country. The debate has resurrected again with the proposed draft bill being considered in the House of Representatives for approval. The Honourable Bulcha Demeksa of the Oromo Federalist Unity Party has been in the forefront of this debate. The bill seeks among others to curtail funding for political parties from foreign sources and to impose obligations on parties to make their financial sources and accounts as transparent as possible to the public auditors and to the government, in view of the need to insure accountability and transparency in political and corporate governance.
|
|
I do not want to pretend not to be aware of the challenges facing the running political parties, especially the already fragmented and struggling opposition parties in the country. State funding of political parties is not a luxury for many fragile opposition parties in the nation’s political arena.
The political structure of a democratic society hinges on the eager participation and rigorous involvement of political parties in the whole egalitarian process. Political parties are vital political institutions for contemporary democracy. They are essential for the organization of modern democratic institutions and are crucial for the expression and manifestation of political consciousness. If there is no monetary backing for the parties existent in the political system, party organization will falter, communication with public will be hampered and money for election campaigns will be hard to come by. Party functioning and organization require stable financial assistance without which the role of a party in the whole political process could become desultory.
However, the merit which the parties and the nation would derive would be far better off if they are not supported by the state. Issues presented by the proposed draft bill is not the question of timing being right or wrong--for the time is always right to do the correct thing.
The question is why should a poor country such as Ethiopia fund political parties in the first place? Why should the government spend huge sums of money on political parties than on our education and health, for example? I think now if there is any institution that we need to support financially, then, it is our educational, health and research institutions in the country. We need to support them because their operations are not attracted by sympathizers to donate to them. But for political parties in the country they have been getting funds from supporters and well wishers in the country and abroad.
There are thousand and one reasons why I dissent from the usage of taxpayers' money to be used to support political parties, and that includes the incumbent party. The argument against this system of funding of political parties is that if parties can rely on state funding, they will renege on their attempt to bond with civil society and their supporters and well-wishers. In that case, the whole democratisation exercise is often defeated. This statement simply put means that such state funded parties will be divorced from civil society and the electorate.
There is the notion also that the parties will be less interested in representing and fulfilling the needs of the citizenry and there will be a reduced passion for the opposition parties to be actively involved in the democratic process.
Secondly, anti-funding notion is that when the state funds political parties it will decrease the internal democratic processes in the parties. When the political parties have sufficient funds from the state coffers, they would rather buy services they need for the survival and smooth operations of the party other than to seek the services from their own members, which hitherto would have increased a sense of belongingness towards the party and what it stands for.
Thirdly, the reason for the anti-funding campaign is that what the Norwegian CMI calls it "party-entrepreneurs" will spring up from all places, and then the whole democratisation process becomes an open market for all sorts of "party entrepreneurs", opportunists and swindlers to join the "business", or the foray. It would surprise you that during one election we can have as many as 70 or more political parties contesting for local, city councils, regional and national parliamentary elections in Ethiopia. When this happens every election would be marred by endless bickering, acrimony and accusations and allegations turning what should have been a peaceful and orderly process to a chaotic and bloody drama, as observed in the 2005 national and regional parliamentary elections in Ethiopia, and in the 2007 presidential elections in Kenya.
Another reason I would mention about is the argument that since not all parties in the early stages of a democratic state have survived, funding all parties in the early democratisation process will invariably increase the unneeded lifespan of parties that have no business in the democracy and that are of no significant meaning to the electorate. In short, the life of all the zombie parties will be prolonged at a cost to everyone and at a profit to no one, except the political opportunists.
The above arguments unambiguously indicate that state-funding of political parties is not just unproductive, but counterproductive and unbeneficial to the democratic process.
The arguments for state funding that it curbs corruption and insures a level playing field doesn't hold water. If political parties are still going to be free to raise private funds, then there still will be party contributors who will still demand for contracts whether or not there was state funding available. They must recoup their "investment" either way.
The other argument that political parties are an integral part of democracy so they should be funded also falls short. 1) The Media, NGOs, civil society and even businesses and corporations are also part of the democratic process. Should they all be state-funded? 2) Also members of the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislature are all employees of the state. Workers at political party offices and their field officers are not state employees, so why should the state pay their salaries? 3) Also, if we fund parties, what happens to independent candidates? Are they not part of the process? If they are also funded, then it really becomes a whole market as was stated previously.
Lastly, if it is to offer a level playing field against the incumbency, then we are pre-concluding that the incumbency should have free and unlimited access to the state apparatus and resources to campaign. This is simply not tackling the root problem of exploitation by incumbency. Let's bear in mind that no matter how much funds the state gives to political parties, if the incumbent is allowed to have unbridled access to state resources and to be corrupt, they will embezzle more and more just to have a financial edge over the competitors. Does this solve the real problem? Not at all!
Furthermore, the bill seeks to allow for foreign support or donations to the parties in the country but to be collected to the State pool for allocating this common fund among those political parties that participate in the elections. This clause contravenes the 1995 Constitution and the sovereignty of the State. Allowing parties to seek external support would open the floodgate of the country to foreign and imperialistic hegemony, creating client regimes in a country that glorifies itself in being perpetually independent of foreign rule for many centuries. Little we know Ethiopia could become Zimbabwe whereby the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has become a stooge for foreign powers.
Finally, for effective party management and sustenance, party leaders and workers need to draw out a viable plan for generating funds for the party. Party finances should mostly be generated through private sources like membership fees and donations by wealthy businessmen or companies/corporations. The oft-lamented and understandable outcry by the opposition bloc in this regard is the abject poverty of the majority of the population and their inability to pay their membership fees and extra donations, and the most likely situation of corporations and wealthy business people preferring to hand out their donations to the ruling party and not to the opposition parties, for the obvious reasons. This is a transient problem that can be surmounted by opposition parties sooner or later. What they need most is in fact cohesion in their organization and coherent national socio-economic, political and foreign policies and programmes that can win the hearts and minds of their constituencies and the general electorate. Money is not an insurmountable constraint for many opposition parties, I believe. The recent overwhelming success of the CUD opposition party in the 2005 national elections clearly attests to this truism.