Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2006-11-15 Reporter: Judith February Reporter:

The Path to Accountability Is No Secret

 

Publication 

Business Day
Date 2006-11-15

Reporter

 Judith February

Web Link

www.businessday.co.za

 

The recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in the Schabir Shaik matter makes for interesting reading because it is unequivocal on corruption: “Corruption is inconsistent with the rule of law and the fundamental values of the constitution ... (it) negatively affects development and the promotion of human rights”. And so the court decision takes us back to the root ­ the constitution, our founding document whose entire thrust is towards openness, transparency and accountability. In the past week we have heard allegations of things that are anathema to the values of the constitution, however.

In what could be a major party-funding scandal, it has been alleged that Chancellor House is a front company for the African National Congress (ANC), which has accumulated “empowerment” stakes in, inter alia, the minerals, energy and engineering sectors. Moreover, it is alleged that Chancellor House, together with Renova ­ a company controlled by Russian oligarch Victor Vekselberg ­ was awarded manganese mining rights in a government tender process. If true, it indicates yet another example of the blurring of party and state. Government awards approximately R200bn worth of tenders annually. In the allocation of the rights to manganese mining to Renova and Chancellor House, have the interests of the party then trumped the best interests of the country and its citizens? The public has the right to know this, as a start.

But the Chancellor House allegations raise the far larger issue of the corrosive impact of money on the political process. How do political parties raise money and what should the rules of the game be? At present there is no law that regulates the private funding of political parties.

This means that political parties are able to raise as much money in secret as they wish without any form of accountability or transparency.

This lack of regulation represents a serious gap in SA’s anticorruption framework that has been in place since 1994. Secret donations from private sources, such as wealthy individuals or large corporations, have the potential to exert undue influence on the political system, drowning out the voices of the poor and further excluding the marginalised from political influence, as well as potentially undermining numerous constitutionally enshrined rights.

Where there is transparency concerning donations, citizens are in a better position to judge whether there has been any connection between a donation and the awarding of a tender, for instance.

There is no doubt that strong democracies need healthy political parties. In turn, of course, political parties require resources to sustain and operate a basic party structure, to contest elections and to contribute to policy debates. The need for transparency and accountability regarding private funding has been recognised by the African Union (AU) Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption, which includes a clause on the importance of regulating private funding. The inclusion of the clause obliges all African states, including SA as a signatory, to re-examine the regulation of party financing. The convention was adopted in Maputo in July 2003. It is therefore only a matter of time before SA is compelled to pass legislation regulating private funding to political parties. Reform and regulation now represent mainstream modern democratic thinking, though the detail of the regulation varies and must be contextually orientated.

In spite of everything, it would appear that some form of a tentative social consensus is emerging in SA. At the ANC national general council meeting last year, there was clear discomfort with the conflation between business and politics. The secretary-general called it the party’s “central challenge”. A resolution was passed that called for greater exploration of measures which increased transparency and accountability about private donations to political parties. It is also an issue which the alliance partners have been seized with of late. Within business there also seems to be a growing consensus that some form of regulation would be better than the laissez-faire policy in operation now.

Ahead of the 2004 elections, several companies voluntarily disclosed their donations to political parties. In addition, the JSE social responsibility index, the first of its kind in a developing country, encourages the disclosure of political donations.

So, sooner rather than later, regulation will come. When it does, political parties, business and civil society need to be ready to engage on the details. Should there be caps on donations to parties? Should there be ceilings on expenditure? If there is regulation, who will enforce it and what will the consequence be of non-disclosure? An argument has also been made for an increase in the public funding allocated to political parties, thus reducing their dependence on private money. Whatever shape or form regulation takes, it is certain that it, in and of itself, is not the panacea for all the ills of corruption. The law cannot stop every dodgy deal, but it is a start to building a culture of openness in relation to money and politics.

Last year, the Institute for Democracy in SA brought an application against the five largest political parties requesting that they reveal their sources of private funding.

While dismissing the application, the Cape High Court held that its judgment did not mean “political parties should not, as a matter of principle, be compelled to disclose details of private donations made to their coffers”. It’s about time principle trumped political expediency, or else we run the risk of putting our democracy up for sale to the highest bidder.

February is head of Idasa’s political information and monitoring service.

With acknowledgements to Judith February and Business Day.