A series of questions about local government issues (and a few more general ones) to help you decide which party to vote for in the municipal elections on March 1 2006.
Question 13. In May last year, the Institute for Democracy in South Africa’s (Idasa) application to have political parties disclose their funding sources was dismissed in court. Would your party disclose its sources of funding? Explain.
ANC
As a matter of practice, the ANC does not disclose to outside parties any information with respect to its internal financial arrangements, including details on sources of funding. The organisation takes the view that issues related to the regulation of party funding are most appropriately dealt with in a holistic manner through the normal legislative process.
DA
The DA would disclose its sources of funding if the law required it to do so. We will maintain the confidentiality of donations received now and in the past. A private members’ Bill to regulate party funding, proposed by DA chief whip Douglas Gibson, has been kicking around Parliament for years and continues to be ignored by the ANC.
FF+
The FF+ supports Idasa’s campaign for more transparency in political party funding. As a party, we have always been outspoken in our support for Idasa’s efforts. Given the risks of intimidation and victimisation of donors of opposition parties by a power-obsessed ruling party, the FF+ would rather support a total overhaul of the current system of funding that allows for donors to make donations not to parties directly, but to an independent fund administered on behalf, and for the benefit, of all parties with proven support.
PAC
No answer provided.
UDM
From the outset, the UDM has supported Idasa’s quest for a better-regulated party political funding framework in South Africa. The UDM will disclose sources of funding within a proper system that, as Idasa has suggested, makes disclosure compulsory but also practical. For instance, disclosing the full details of every donor of R5 would be impractical, whereas disclosure of secret donations of R11-million — such as that the ANC received in the Oilgate scandal — is of much more importance to an open and democratic society.
The Idasa campaign, which the UDM fully supports, implies much more than mere disclosure, however. The consideration of banning foreign donations, putting a cap on the size of individual donations and the amount and division of taxpayer funding for political parties are all important elements in a party funding system that will strengthen multiparty democracy and a free and open society.
UCDP
We would have no problems in disclosing and declaring our sources of funding if we had some except the government. How we wish political parties could conduct their business openly.
ACDP
When the issue first reared its head around 2003, we were the only political party to adhere to Idasa’s request. We submitted audited information as well as sources of private donations to the party. In the interest of political transparency as well as a measure to combat corruption within political parties and the government, we have stood by the view that all parties should disclose sources of funding.
Furthermore, political parties have a duty to their electorate to ensure that they are transparent because voters must never question the legitimacy of decisions made on their behalf that may be easily influenced by funders. Last year, when the Cape High Court dismissed Idasa’s application compelling political parties to disclose their funding sources, we expressed our disappointment and encouraged Idasa to appeal the decision. Idasa has, for the moment, decided against that but we will support them should they decide to take it up again.
MF
Yes, any time. The MF receives no funding from anyone except the Independent Electoral Commission parliamentary (constituency allowances), and those candidates participating in the elections who contribute to certain costs.
IFP
We are strongly in favour of public disclosure and have said so on numerous occasions. However, we don’t see any merit in our doing this unilaterally if other parties fail to do likewise, because this could harm us financially. So, we favour regulation by law and are active participants in an Idasa-led initiative to promote this outcome in South Africa.
ID
The ID has fully participated in Idasa’s initiative to lobby for a more equitable and transparent political-party funding regime in South Africa. The ID believes that the entire funding regime is completely flawed and inequitable, requiring massive changes if we are to have a truly multiparty system in South Africa.
The issue of disclosure is only one aspect of the changes that are needed and we would support a regime that required donations of more than R50Â 000 to be disclosed. It would negatively affect any one political party to disclose its sources of funding without other political parties being forced to do so as well. The ID would therefore definitely support a far more transparent system of funding whereby individuals and companies know that any donations over a certain amount will be disclosed to the public.
Nadeco
No answer provided.
In short
ANC: African National Congress
DA: Democratic Alliance
FF+: Freedom Front Plus
ID: Independent Democrats
ACDP: African Christian Democratic Party
UCDP: United Christian Democratic Party
MF: Minority Front
PAC: Pan Africanist Congress
Nadeco: National Democratic Convention
Return to Special report: Local elections 2006