Campaign resources, especially financial resources, always stir heated debates in all democracies and it is an issue increasingly coming to the fore in South Africa.
There are various aspects of this issue, ranging from the controversy around the declaration of funds by political parties, to the equitable allocation of these resources to different parties.
This is a serious issue because it will be a sad day indeed if the amount of resources will be the determinant of which party is going to win an election. What this will mean is that financial resources will be primary in determining our future, not the will of voters.
How then should this issue be approached and be dealt with by society so that we don’t fall into the deplorable situation where money is the king?
The first thing to realise is that whether we like it or not, money is already playing a big role in the ability of political parties and their strengths.
It is a fact that political party campaigning is increasingly being shaped around the amount of resources a party can muster. For example, media advertisements are hideously expensive.
The main concern around campaign finances is the extent to which the funding might be used, especially by the party that becomes a government, to peddle around influence.
Surprisingly, major South African parties have been very reluctant to open their books for scrutiny. This includes the governing party, the ANC, and opposition parties such as the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP).
The issue has been so serious that the Institute for a Democratic South Africa (Idasa) has taken these political parties to court to force them to reveal their sources of funding. This is a commendable move by Idasa.
The main reason provided by these parties for non-disclosure of their funding is confidentiality. However, in a democracy confidentiality of the source of funds should be dispensed with in the interests of transparency.
For example, it is quite understandable that the ANC would be reticent to reveal its sources because of its past history, where its operation as a liberation movement did not just lend itself to go about telling everybody where it got its funding from.
But now the situation has changed. In the interests of dispelling any kinds of suspicions of peddling influence, political parties must adhere to this view and open their books to scrutiny.
There should however be a proviso attached to this demand: The opening of political parties’ books should not be on the basis that they are involved in ‘shady relationships”. It should be very clear that there is no insidious assumption that political parties are involved in any underhand activities if they are to feel free to reveal their sources of funding.
The recent announcement by major South African conglomerates of the parties they are funding and by how much is also very commendable. This is very forward looking because it takes away all the suspicion that political parties are being funded to peddle influence.
The other issue that must be addressed at this point, is to what extent should political parties be funded and on what basis?
This is the key issue because, amongst others, it would not be proper to prescribe to funders who they should give their money to and how much. They should be allowed to do so freely if they are to be encouraged to be open about the process. Otherwise, the whole exercise will be driven underground again.
But the problem still remains: To what extent should money play a determining role in politics?
One way to go about this problem would be to prescribe a ceiling as to how much a party can raise, especially from one source. There should be limits to the amounts each party can raise in a campaign.
In this manner, the field will, to a large extent, be levelled in that unlimited amounts will not be showered on certain political parties to the detriment of others.
In this vein, it must also be noted that the weaker parties should realise that it is incumbent upon themselves, given the reality of what type of society we live in, to raise their own funds. And they can only do so by putting forward realistic policies that would be worthwhile supporting.
Indeed, this issue must be an ongoing debate and there is a need to continue this conversation around how money can be curbed and minimised in determining the outcome of election.
We surely do not want to end up in a situation where people’s choices are undermined by money.
Dr Thabisi Hoeane is a lecturer in the Department of Political and International Studies at Rhodes University Grahamstown. He contributes regularly to national print media. His PhD was on South African Electoral Studies and Democratisation.