As some lawyers like to say, Res Ipsa Loquitur — the facts speak for themselves. On April 17 last year, Count Riccardo Agusta met with David Malatsi, then provincial minister for environment in the Western Cape. Agusta wanted permission to develop a golf estate at Roodefontein; Malatsi was facing objections from senior officials in his own department. The next day Agusta paid R300 000 into the New National Party’s account. The day after, Malatsi demoted the environmental management director, Ingrid Coetzee. And, on May 6, Malatsi gave Agusta’s company the permission it needed.
This is old news, I know, and still to be proven in court. But it makes a very simple point, very close to home. The wealthy are only too happy to donate money to political parties if they think it will serve their commercial interests. The Malatsi case is at one end of the spectrum. Most donations for influence operate towards the other end; neither Agusta nor Malatsi get top marks for subtlety, though there is a trail of similar cases stretching from Australia to Thailand, and from Turkey to the United States, via Germany and France.
Clean financial contributions to democratic politics are welcome and important, but often the links are more insidious. The head of corporate affairs of a large transnational that is partially based in South Africa once admitted two things to me. He said: ‘If we want to speak to the government then my CEO calls the president and the president tends to take the call.” He then added that his company made regular donations to the ruling party. It may be that it doesn’t need to. Given the power of many transnational corporations, heads of government tend to take their calls everywhere. That is the way of the world at the moment, the balance of forces, so to speak. It’s also the macro problem that the growing debate around party political funding in South Africa needs to take on board.
During an SAfm After Eight Debate on the subject 10 days ago, one caller, Hassen, phoned in to make a very astute point. He drew attention to the number of left-of-centre parties around the world that have cosied up to big business while at the same time losing sight of their ideological heritage.
Everywhere you look the good intentions of Social Democrat governments are eclipsed by more powerful transnational interests. The South Africa government is struggling to come to grips with its responsibility to the majority, most of whom have got poorer as the rich have got richer since 1994. That, say the left, is what neo-liberal economics always does.
The story of how big capital got its teeth slowly into the African National Congress and distracted it from its Social Democrat path, like the French Socialists in the 1980s, the Czech Republic in the 1990s, and possibly like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Lula da Silva in Brazil now, is only partially told or understood. Part of the story is about how elite interests exert their power and extend their influence. Donating money to political parties is one instrument at their disposal.
Is this what happened with the ANC? It’s impossible to be precise at the moment because of the shroud of secrecy. The ANC government has done well in the fight against corruption generally, putting in place an array of institutions and policies. South Africa’s is a far more transparent and ethical system of government than many around the world. But there is a gaping lucuna at its heart that threatens to undo all the good work. As things stand, donors can give as much money as they wish, to whichever party they wish, however often they wish, in secret. Or, put another way, political parties can accept as much and as often as they like, in secret.
It’s terribly convenient for everyone involved. And so a conspiracy of silence persists, despite sporadic, vague promises to reform the law.
The Institute for Democracy in South Africa’s (Idasa) imminent court application will test the constitutionality of this state of secrecy. The right to know in the Constitution applies to both public and private entities. So even if the political parties are able to persuade the court that when they stand for elections, organise themselves to represent their voters in Parliament and spend public money to do both, they do not in law perform a public function, they will still be liable to reveal their donors if Idasa can show that the information is needed to protect or exercise another right.
It is a delicate but entirely appropriate time for the issues to be fully ventilated. With election campaigns in preparation for April next year, money is being raised big time. In the United Kingdom in 1997 many large corporate donors simply switched their funding from the Conservatives to New Labour, sometimes, as with Bernie Ecclestone, to the embarassment of Tony Blair. Having donated several million pounds to the Tories over the years, Ecclestone gave a million to Labour for its election campaign, then offered another million when it won and looked like it might ban cigarette advertising from his beloved — and lucrative — formula one racing industry. Labour was compelled by public pressure to give the cheque back once the information leaked. Then it reformed the law to require disclosure of donations above a certain size. Once again: Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Opensecrets.org enables you to chart private funding trends in United States politics relating to particular candidates, parties or industries. This is the value of openness: whereas in 1990 the oil industry gave the Republicans around 50% more than the Democrats, by 2002 it was four times as much. Need we ask why?
Are the voices of the poor not simply drowned out by the weight and ideological influence of the big donors? Not according to another of the callers to John Perlman’s radio show. He argued first that ANC culture would not permit such influence to overwhelm the intense debates that take place among ordinary members in their wards. Idasa will argue in court that the right to free political association includes the right to know with whom you are associating. Secrecy hurts party members as much as ordinary voters; they might be more than a bit surprised at just who exactly is providing financial and in-kind support.
His second argument was that in any case, the ANC in government is very much separate from the party. So, he maintained, a donation of R10 000 to the local party is not going to have any influence on the tender awards of the local authority.
If it was just R10 000 one might begin to entertain the argument, even though it misses the macro perspective described above. The guestimate is that the ANC spent more than R100-million at the last election. Even if it spent every penny that it got that year from public funding (R33-million), it seems probable that it received at least R70-million from the private sector.
Parties need money to operate. We must fully accept this; the question is how much and at what level should disclosure be required. The inter-related policy option, therefore, is to cap election campaign expenditure. Openness is not enough, as the US’s dismal politics, awash with cash, shows. Less dependency on big private donations might prompt a return to real politics.
Modern politics tends to encourage big media campaigning. Parties buy TV and radio airtime and newspaper ads to communicate. Fast-food politics. It is very expensive and not much of a dialogue. The alternative? Actually meeting with and talking to the voters. Now there’s a thought.