South Africa’s four major political parties will refuse to disclose the sources of their funding, arguing that to do so would threaten the country’s multiparty democracy.
In what could become a landmark legal battle in South Africa’s political history, the African National Congress, the Democratic Alliance, the Inkatha Freedom Party and the New National Party have filed affidavits in the Cape Town High Court in response to the Institute for Democracy in South Africa’s (Idasa) court attempt to compel them to disclose their sources of private donations.
Forced disclosure, say the parties, would cause donors to back off, which could break the financial back of the smaller parties. This would sap the power of the country’s multiparty system.
”Rather than advancing democracy in this country, the disclosure of identity of donors to [Idasa] is likely to have a deleterious affect on democracy in South Africa — [it will] have a chilling effect on the activities of the ANC — and it would have an adverse effect on multiparty democracy in South Africa to the detriment of public interest,” says the ANC’s affidavit, filed by the party’s secretary general, Kgalema Motlanthe.
”The DA’s financial interests would obviously be harmed if disclosure of donation records were to cause existing and potential donors to refrain from making future donations — or to reduce the amount of their donation,” says the DA affidavit.
Disclosure would ”retard democracy and hinder the participation and growth of opposition parties — it stands to reason that potential donors may be more reticent to be seen to be supporting minority or opposition political parties because of the potential fall-out this may have for their relationship with the governing party — the effect is that smaller parties will have greater difficulty in raising funds,” says the NNP affidavit.
”[The IFP] submits that disclosure in the form sought by Idasa will adversely affect the rights of both donors and political parties and have serious ramifications — on the promotion of a multiparty system of democratic government,” says the IFP’s affidavit.
Idasa’s notice of motion, filed in November last year, asks the high court to order the parties to disclose donations of R50 000 or more received from January 2003 onwards. ”The purpose is to compel disclosure only in respect of donations that are sufficiently substantial to influence a political party,” says the motion.
The litigation followed Idasa’s requests for records of all donations of R20 000 or more made to the political parties under the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act. The parties failed to respond.
Idasa asserts in its court papers that political parties are ”public bodies” for the purposes of the right to access information in terms of the Constitution. There are important ramifications for members of the public who ”do not exert influence over the political process through funding”, says Idasa’s motion. ”The poor are unable to exert influence over the political process through funding whereas the corporate sector and wealthy individuals are afforded a level of influence. The social harms caused by improper influence in governance, fraud and corruption are well-known and society needs to be protected against them.”
According to the ANC’s affidavit, ”I [Motlanthe] deny that there is a causal relationship between the failure to disclose donor information and corruption, improper influence and maladministration in the government.” Membership costs for the ANC are R12 a year, which ”barely covers the administration relating to that membership. The ANC is heavily reliant upon funding from international sources, including governments, political parties, non-governmental organisations and civil society groups. Many of these donors will be greatly embarrassed by disclosure of their contributions to the ANC, so much so that I believe that this source of funding will be substantially reduced if the disclosure is made mandatory.”
While the DA admits that it has received eight donations of more than R50 000 since January last year, disclosure ”may prejudice them in bidding for contracts awarded by organs of state controlled by other parties”. The DA is also concerned about protecting the identity of its individual donors, who constitute six of the eight major donors.