A lack of regulation over political party funding was the biggest threat to democracy in South Africa, said political analyst Steven Friedman on Wednesday.
”The relationship between money and politics may well be the biggest threat to democracy in South Africa. Democracy is meant to be a system where every adult member of society has equal say,” said Friedman, who is the director for the centre of democracy at the University of Johannesburg.
However, in South Africa the role of private money in politics was ubiquitous, he said.
”There are a great many politicians in this country who are beholden to private money and that’s a problem.
”The problem is [when there is private funding] public decisions are taken for reasons other than those the majority of citizens would like to see,” he said.
Friedman was speaking at a quarterly debate hosted by the Helen Suzman Foundation on political party funding in South Africa.
The Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa) described how it sought to force political parties to disclose their funders through court action in 2003 but was unsuccessful.
Idasa’s Shameela Seedat said the lack of transparency in party funding had a direct impact on the electorate.
”If there is no regulation, the electorate does not know where the money comes from … the electorate needs transparency, without it they cannot see who the piper is and who is calling the tunes,” she said.
”An election is only fair if the electorate can make an informed choice and this includes knowing where the money came from.”
Hennie van Vuuren, head of the corruption and governance unit at the Institute for Security Studies, said the lack of regulation in party funding left a hole in the fight against corruption.
”We have developed a very strong framework of laws and institutions to tackle corruption in South Africa … and this [lack of regulation of party funding] is the one big gaping loophole that does remain.
”But it remains as much a part of a broader discussion that we are not having on the issue of money in politics and conflict of interest in public life.”
Van Vuuren identified risk areas where party funding could lead to conflict of interest.
”In the issue of our relations with foreign states … we have no clarity over the impact that foreign funding has over domestic policies, politics and our relations to foreign states,” he said.
During apartheid, the South African government would fund overseas political parties in order to influence foreign policy, he said.
”I think we should be aware of the impact this kind of funding can have on the policy making process.”
The question of foreign countries funding political parties arose after the furore over the Dalai Lama being denied a visa by the South African government.
”We know the week before this happened the China Africa forum took place we know that Mathews Phosa was described by some to be the star of the show at that meeting and one does wonder why sitting next to the deputy South African minister of trade and industry, leading the South African delegation, we have the ANC [African National Congress] treasurer general.
”I think we would need to ask the same question if it was the DA [Democratic Alliance] treasurer general, the Cope [Congress of the People] treasurer general … it’s not directed at the party, it is the delineation of party and state in this instance,” Van Vuuren said.
Another risk area was organised criminal networks.
”We think here about Jurgen Harksen and his famous tango with the DA in the Western Cape. A man who until recently had been sitting in jail in Germany.”
Van Vuuren suggested introducing a regulatory framework to create a ”central democratic fund” where everyone wanting to contribute to a political party placed their donation.
The money would then be distributed by an institute like the Independent Electoral Commission, for example.
He said internal party democracy was also being undermined by the lack of regulation in political party funding. Trade unions as well as ordinary members had a role to play a role in calling on their parties to be more transparent.
Consensus was reached during the debate that political will was weak in implementing any form of legislation to regulate party funding.
”We cannot rely on political parties … they have no intention to bring about transparency … it’s really going to depend on citizens making this part of the public debate,” Friedman said.
Speakers agreed that reform had to be driven by civil society, however there was indication that the ANC intended to introduce regulation.
It resolved at its elective conference in Polokwane in 2007 that it would ”champion the introduction of a comprehensive system of public funding of representative political parties”.
”This should include putting in place an effective regulatory architecture for private funding of political parties and civil society groups to enhance accountability and transparency to the citizenry,” the resolution said.
”The incoming NEC [National Executive Committee] must urgently develop guidelines and policy on public and private funding, including how to regulate investment vehicles.”
The conference resolution had to be implemented by government before the party’s next conference in 2012. — Sapa