Thursday, 19 November 2015

The Funding of Political Parties in Zimbabwe

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