So far, citizen activists have fought the symptoms of the harm money does to politics here. Now they can tackle the causes — and make more of a difference than any of the campaigns against state capture.
The opportunity has been created by the publication of a draft Political Party Funding Bill by an ad hoc parliamentary committee. The draft would force parties to disclose where they get their money and set up a multiparty democracy fund which would distribute funding among parties.
But its details are far less important than the fact that it has been published for comment. This signals that Parliament’s committee believes a law should be passed but has not made its mind up on details and is open to persuasion. It also means there is no firm decision yet by Parliament to pass a law.
This sets two tasks for citizen activism — to ensure a law is passed and that its wording meets citizens’ needs
This sets two tasks for citizen activism — to ensure a law is passed and that its wording meets citizens’ needs.
Much is at stake. It has become routine to point out that using money to ensure that government does what the wealthy want, not what the people want, is not the monopoly of a few politicians and the Guptas. It is deeply embedded in our politics. And, while the root cause is an economy in which cosy dealings between insiders has been a norm for decades, it is made much easier by the absence of any law forcing parties and politicians to say where they get their money. The bill could fill that gap.
Some academics doubt that a law would help — they argue that parties and the people who buy them have ways of getting round the rules. But, while that is no doubt true, the same could be said of any law, particularly those which try to govern how people do business.
If we avoid passing laws because people can find ways to cheat, we would not pass any laws at all
If we avoid passing laws because people can find ways to cheat, we would not pass any laws at all. A party funding law would at the very least create a lever that could be used by citizens to force parties to account for their funding.
How much difference it made would depend on how good citizens were at enforcing it — there is not much anyone can do to prevent money buying government unless the lever exists.
To see how important it is that laws are in place, we can compare democracies that do control private funding of politics with those that do not.
One that does not is the US — polls find a wide gap between what citizens want on key policy questions and what politicians will consider, which has a great deal to do with what the people who pay for their campaigns are willing to tolerate.
US politicians must rely entirely on private donors to fund their campaigns, so they spend most of their time courting donors rather than voters.
In countries where there are controls, and public money is available for parties to ensure that politics does not depend on private donors, the fit between law and policy and what citizens want is closer, and representatives spend more time looking after voters than pandering to donors.
Until we have a strong funding law, our politics will reflect what people with money want, not what the people want. A law will not automatically end the problem, but will make it possible to tackle it.
Getting one passed will not be straightforward: while the ANC has endorsed a law governing funding in principle, there may be strong resistance from opposition parties which, predictably, distrust the governing party’s motives.
They claim that disclosing funding will scare away their donors because, once the ANC knows who they are, it will punish them or their businesses. Some critics of public funding argue that it disadvantages opposition parties because, if money goes to parties in proportion to their result at the last election, it will always give governing parties an advantage.
Neither argument is a strong reason not to pass a law. Governments that punish donors for supporting their opponents will presumably find ways to discover who they are. Disclosure should protect opposition donors because, if they are discriminated against, the reason will be clear and they will be able to show a court that they are being unfairly treated.
Nor does public funding need to go to parties in proportion to their share of the vote — some countries use a formula that makes sure smaller parties get their fair share.
But, in this political climate, a campaign that aims to change the view of opposition parties rather than the ANC alone is more difficult.
If a law is passed, ensuring that it really addresses the problem will be crucial. There is no shortage of evidence from elsewhere on what works but the key will be figuring out what is most likely to work here and persuading politicians to adopt it.
So the draft bill is an opportunity for a form of citizen activism which could not merely target some who buy politicians, but make it difficult for anyone to do the same in future.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.