The Political Party Funding Act requires parties to disclose donations above a certain threshold but it falls short of mandating transparency on expenditure. (Delwyn Verasamy/M&G)
The Political Party Funding Act is imperfect. That is where the agreement in South African society begins and ends.
The four-year-old law has featured in the headlines this week, sparking criticism and introspection of the current dispensation that we have become accustomed to.
The Western Cape High Court this week dismissed an application by My Vote Counts to re-examine aspects of the Act — particularly amendments made by President Cyril Ramaphosa last week to double the thresholds of disclosure and donation limits. Individual donors may now give up to R200 000 anonymously, capped at a R30 million aggregate amount. But the court struck down the application on the basis that it was too speculative and did not offer hard evidence on the adverse aspects that it criticised.
The developments are concerning. Although Ramaphosa’s action was backed by the portfolio committee on home affairs and the National Assembly, it nonetheless represents political creep and regression on hard-fought standards.
It was civil society, academia and the media that were responsible for forcing the Act into law.
Politicians across party lines loathe the idea of legislating their donations. It’s not a secret why.
“The companies are very reluctant to do that [make donations]. Even companies that are owned by those who are known to be ANC members are also reluctant,” ANC treasurer general Gwen Ramokgopa said this week. “The opposition also undermines their brands; they don’t respect them because they would still need to thrive both in the corporate world in South Africa and globally.”
Ramokgopa is not wrong. But the ANC has done as much as any other party to sully the political world and make it synonymous with cheap sniping.
More importantly, that debate is a distraction. The common narrative that the Political Party Funding Act is harming our democracy is dangerous and should be condemned.
Yes, there are undoubtedly fewer funds flowing into politics. But we cannot lose sight of why the Act was necessary: money buys influence. That influence was being yielded with impunity; we know that thanks to numerous examples over decades. That it took so long to implement is itself an indictment of our democracy.
The loopholes are still being exploited. That the cap is being circumvented by donating through multiple companies is a particularly egregious example.
The Act needs to be tightened. Any attempt to creep in the other direction should be rejected.