By Nick Mangwana
One wonders why everything
involving Zanu PF is turned into a controversy regardless of how straight
forward it might be. Last week this
column had to discuss the relationship between churches and politics after a
few rich churches were alleged to be involved in funding Zanu PF and this had
caused some kind of negative excitement on social media and in the so-called
independent press. Next was the
invitation sent out to the corporate world to come and partake in a fundraising
dinner. Again there was some brouhaha from the same quarters leading to some
getting the feeling or perception that there was some kind of impropriety in
the corporate sector funding political parties.
The fact of the matter is that there is no need for an uproar as
everything is quite above board. There is a symbiotic relationship between
business and politics. Whilst those
opposed to certain parties would really prefer the relationship between a long
term incumbent like Zanu PF and business to be antagonistic they get
disappointed when they discover that it
not only genial but in some cases quite affectionate that business is happy to
write a few cheques in support of certain political programmes like the hosting
of an annual conference. There is
nothing fundamentally corrupt about that.
A lot of Zimbabwean companies
have been listed and sanctioned by the
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) because of their association with the
State of Zimbabwe or the ruling party. Recently there have been cries of,
" boycott this or boycott that business" again for the same reasons. The source of this
clamour is never surprising because once the word "boycott" is
uttered there is no price for guessing whose brainchild that is. As said
earlier there is no violation of the law or generally accepted standards when
companies show sympathy towards certain political parties, ideology or
positions. Some decide not only to sympathise but to finance those causes or parties
as well.
There has been a persistent
rumour over the years that corporate magnates like Mr Strive Masiyiwa
have been
sponsoring certain opposition politicians and their parties and even acting as unofficial advisors. This
can make one a darling of the opposition.
The opposition is always an underdog when in a dogfight with an
incumbent therefore no one bats an eyelid if the opposition gets corporate
funding.
The ruling party made a lot of
noise a few years ago when one opposition leader had a triumphant smug on their
gleeful face as they ogled a big pile of cheques they were receiving from
commercial farmers. The ruling party alleged that these were payments to
subvert the will of the people in as far as the Land Reform was concerned. At
the end of the day whilst the morality and the political wisdom of this could
be questioned by everyone searching their own conscience, there was nothing
illegal about it. If there is a nothing
illegal about it then there is nothing wrong when it is Zanu PF.
Funding for political parties has
always been a contentious issue both in Zimbabwe and abroad. Zimbabwe is guided
by the Political Parties Finance Act 2001. This Act was first assented to in
1992, amended in 1997 and re-issued again in 2001. Its primary reason for
existence (which it has dismally failed
to do) is to stop foreigners from interfering in Zimbabwe's internal affairs by
obligating the State to locally fund any party that garners at least 5% vote in
the general election. Helpful ass this
might be this funding is never enough and is never coming on time because of
current economic challenges. So this leads to parties having to find another
funding stream. The next source is membership through subscriptions and other
contributions. There still remain a funding gap even after these. That is where individuals and business come
in.
In every mature democracy, the
bulk of funding for political parties comes from business and the corporate
world. In India 90% of funding to national parties in the 2013/2014 period was
from business houses and corporations. In the United States the figure is 70%
for the same period. The Republicans took 59% of the funding and the Democrats
took 41%.
In the UK political parties can
receive funding from any company or business as long as it is registered in the
UK and it carries business in the
UK. For an individual to donate to a
political party both in the UK and the US, they should be on the electoral
register and the donation itself should be registered. The idea is the same as in Zimbabwe. That is
not to have foreigners or foreign
corporations with no local interests
influencing domestic politics. You see, even the greatest meddlers
in other countries' affairs do not want anyone meddling in theirs.
The other point is that if labour
unions fund political parties all over the world, why can't business fund those
political parties that they believe have an ideology that promote their
interests as long as it is done transparently. If one takes the UK model, one
would discover that the caveat to all this is that as long as there is a
registration of the donation and it is
all transparent who has donated to what political party or what cause. If in the future there are certain favours or
tenders preferences then this can be scrutinised.
In countries like Canada there
have been cases of business being so involved in politics that they have had an
influence on which candidates participate in what elections.
Any normal business would want to
influence broad priorities on any political agenda. So naturally business would
want to support the party that has policies that is consistent with their
economic interests. Being at the same table and pressing flesh with a decision maker helps one have a bit of intelligence,
be informally heard as well as have some political leverage. Is that wrong?
Reaching out to business for financial
support is not corrupt per se. It is just reaching out for corporate interests.
It could have been any other special interests grouping. It just so happened in
other cases that these have possibly deeper pockets and the feeling is that
against a formidable incumbent with big financial backers the playing field
will never be "even". In the UK Labour with its Union backing has
struggled to financially compete against the Tories' wealthy donors.
In settings like Zimbabwe where
resources are scarce, there is always going to be a disparity between the
funding each political party would get, with more funding probably going mainly to those that are
deemed to have the political power than to those that are likely to just be
opposing. Those that are accusing
business and corporations are challenged to pick any country whom they believe
to have a highly developed democracy and check out where the political funding
streams run from. The bulk is from corporations and sometimes small local
businesses at provincial levels.
Let us go back to the proviso
that was alluded to earlier. There
should be no coercion or extortion. There should also be no backlash to those
that decide to back the opposition or those that back a party that loses. Their
loss should just be that they backed a loser.
The second issue if the model being used elsewhere is just to have a
Register for Political Donations for public scrutiny. The problem with this approach again there
can never be transparency if "boycott brigade" takes a peek in the
register and immediately goes hysterical
with the usual mantra, " Boycott this, boycott that because they fund the
regime!" . This again can be considered some form of backlash. There
should be no consequences against those that choose to fund a party and those
that choose not to. There should be no threats veiled or explicit. Anonymised donations should be very small
amounts only.
Businesses have always tried to
influence public policy everywhere. Zimbabwean businesses are no exception. As
long as there is no extortion involved there should be no problem. If there was
a sign today that the opposition was going to be in power then the corporate
sector would be hedging their bets with them. But that sign is not on the horizon and
therefore the purse strings also remain tight.
Those that follow British
politics are aware of the Media Baron Rupert Murdock's controversies in its politics. His papers take partisan political positions so does his
company. Through this he has unfettered access to the rulers of the country as
well as an influence on their domestic politics. But let the relationship between the media
and politics be a different instalment for another day. This week is about
business in general.
So when 6000 or so members of
Zanu PF and their guests meet in Victoria Falls in the second week of December,
have their Conference and enjoy the accompanying shindig, let it be clear that
it is not government money. It is Zanu PF money. The only price which everyone has to look clearly
at is the political price to pay when
one shows too much display of political extravagance. The electorate may find some of that a
vulgarity. But besides that, there is really no argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment