Publication: The Times Issued: Date: 2007-12-02 Reporter: Judith February Reporter: Richard Calland

Money and Politics : Two Views

 

Publication 

The Times
Date

2007-12-02
Reporter Judith February, Richard Calland

Web Link

www.thetimes.co.za

 

Without regulation, shady donations threaten to corrupt South Africa politics, say Judith February and Richard Calland, but neither the ruling party nor its opponents show any enthusiasm for enforcing transparency in corporate largesse

It is entirely ironic that some of the most vocal of those yearning for Jacob Zuma to become ANC president appear to be doing so under the guise of taking the party back from the unhealthy influence of capital, thereby restoring it as a vehicle that reflects the voices of the poor and marginalised.

It is ironic because nowhere is there any indication that Zuma will be either willing or able to rescue the ANC from its apparently addictive dependence on secret donations, and from its increasing willingness to use state tenders and contracts as a pump for its own finances.

The most recent case to hit the headlines involves Chancellor House, a company that has benefited from a number of government tenders and is allegedly an ANC funding vehicle.

As the editor of this newspaper rightly pointed out a week ago, all the evidence suggests that the ANC has succumbed to the culture of secrecy and lack of transparency of which it once accused corporate South Africa.

In 2000, we stated that the way in which South Africa deals with allegations of corruption surrounding the arms deal would represent a litmus test for South Africa's new democracy. Sadly, it has largely failed.

As Andrew Feinstein's recent book, After the Party, records, the ANC is alleged to have sought to desperately cover up the corruption attached to the deal, in the full knowledge that the ANC as an organisation was a major beneficiary of the bribes being paid. If that is not so, then the ANC would presumably be willing to open its books to public scrutiny.

At the time, a very senior ANC source told us: "The ANC leadership saw the arms deal as the perfect opportunity to line its own nest", which is why, at a time of growing financial crisis for the organisation, even some of its leaders, with the highest degrees of probity, were willing to turn a blind eye *1.

Both of the two main candidates for leadership of the ANC are seriously tainted by the festering, unresolved sore of the arms deal. Thabo Mbeki chaired the Cabinet subcommittee that oversaw the deal, and allegations that Zuma received substantial financial inducements from one of the subcontractors *2 form part of the corruption case against him that threatens once more to engulf or invigorate his drive to the top.

The party's secretary-general, Kgalema Motlanthe, warned of the culture of "greed and corruption" taking hold of the party, in his 2005 Organisational Report.

Moreover, the ANC appears to have lost if not its ethical compass, then its ability to balance competing interests within its ranks. In the absence of a clear policy and guidelines on its relationship with business ­ and mixed signals from the leadership ­ the organisation is prone to the sort of manifest confusion it showed in its response to claims that it was selling access to business at its national conference for millions of rands.

In fact, there is nothing especially wrong with this. Its spokesmen sound so shifty on the subject because the party has lost sight of the distinction between the inappropriate use of its link with public patronage on one hand and acceptable, legitimate fundraising on the other.

And so the impact of money on our political system will be felt in Limpopo, be it through the proposed "ANC networking lounge", where companies will pay large amounts to "network" with ANC members, or by funding the event itself, or indeed, in the most sinister manner, by supporting individual "candidacies".

Who will be funding Polokwane? Surely not the delegates paying their R800 to attend. Political parties need money, but where the rules of the game are unclear, it is a tacit licence to raise money without providing an account of it. In an environment in which there is no regulation of private funding to political parties, anything goes, and parties are able to get away with muddying the waters.

Given the ANC's dominance politically, it is unsurprising that many ANC members find themselves in key positions of state and in corporate South Africa. This is to be expected. Naturally, though, the temptations surrounding conflicts of interest are great. And so, given the ANC's need to feather its nest at key political moments, our political culture has been almost overtaken by a pervasive culture of acquisitiveness and, at its worst, a culture of corruption and lack of accountability .

Some have argued that the ANC has lost sight of its core constituency: those who are poor and marginalised. Returning to its roots by putting the poor at the centre of its vision will require both clarity of thought on the impact that money has on the political process ­ and political leadership on the issue.

Virtually all of the major corruption scandals exposed since 1994 have been connected to donations of some sort or another ­ alleged BAE bribes to win an arms deal contract, Count Riccardo Agusta's donation in exchange for approval to build a golf estate at Roodefontein, the "Oilgate" plunder of state money and, more recently, allegations of an ANC funding front, Chancellor House.

The ANC has yet to table draft legislation almost two years after the end of the Idasa court application that sought to compel political parties to disclose their sources of private funding, and despite the fact that South Africa has since ratified the African Union convention against corruption, which prescribes that signatories should regulate private funding on the basis of "the principle of transparency".

But the problem is more complex than simply looking towards regulation. As the US and British examples have underlined, regulation can never be the panacea.

This very week, the UK's Labour Party got itself into a mess related to a political donation. The party accepted an illegal donation through a "clean" middleman.

What regulation can do, however, is create a culture of accountability on the issue of money and the political process.

Incidentally, when Idasa brought its application against the five largest political parties in South Africa, the one thing they were all united on was their refusal to disclose their sources of funding.

Corporate South Africa, much of which will be at the network lounge in Polokwane, has also been slow to pick up the challenge and raise its head above the parapet on this most political of issues. Why should it, when political parties remain reluctant to tackle the issue?

An ANC committee has apparently been constituted to think about the impact of money on the party. This includes questions of the "revolving door" ­ how to regulate the seamless movement from politics to business ­ the disclosure of financial interests, and the culture of acquisitiveness that has become pervasive.

If the ANC is serious about shifting the political culture and changing the party, it will need to unshackle itself from the clutches of unscrupulous business.

Judith February heads Idasa's Political Information & Monitoring Service and Richard Calland its Economic Governance Programme

With acknowledgements to Judith February, Richard Calland and The Times.


*1       Read Nelson Mandela.

Zuma did not receive bribes from a sub-contractors, but from a main contractor. Both Thomson-CSF and ADS were parties to the Corvette Agreement and are therefore main contractors or prime contractors.