How govt may fund political parties
VARIOUS officials have confirmed the Government’s intention to start funding political parties. Subsequently, party leaders are no longer concerned about whether the cash will flow, but rather how much and in what proportions. Will the State fund all registered political parties, big and small?
By Hamis Kaheru
VARIOUS officials have confirmed the Government’s intention to start funding political parties. Subsequently, party leaders are no longer concerned about whether the cash will flow, but rather how much and in what proportions. Will the State fund all registered political parties, big and small?
Will it be only those represented in Parliament, in which case only five out of a dozen or so would benefit? If it is only those with MPs, will they receive equal amount per year?
Will parties with more MPs receive more money, in which case JEEMA and CP with one MP each would get the least money? These and others are some of the questions for debate once a relevant Bill is introduced. However, some people want the debate to come before the Bill, not vice-versa.
In most countries, State funding of parties is not uniform and is both direct and indirect. In the United Kingdom, for example, there are two major forms of direct funding: Short Money and Policy Development Grants.
Short Money
Short Money is provided to opposition parties represented in the House by two or more MPs, or one sitting MP and more than 150,000 votes at the previous elections. If this system was adopted here, CP and JEEMA, with one MP each (Suzan Nampija and Hussein Kyanjo), would not qualify — and also veteran politician Bidandi Ssali’s PPP and Emmanuel Tumusiime’s FIL.
Short Money is meant to assist an opposition party in carrying out its parliamentary business; to cover its travel and associated expenses; and for running costs of the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The ruling party is not entitled because it can draw on public resources to run its parliamentary business.
In the case of Uganda, the NRM would not get the money because its Chief Whip is a Cabinet Minister while the Chairman is the President. The FDC would receive more money than UPC and DP because the Leader of Opposition, Prof. Ogenga Latigo, is their member. For example, in 2005-6 financial year, the Conservative Party (UK) received £4m (sh14b) while the Liberal Democrats received £1.5m (sh5.2b). The chief whips of UPC and DP, Okello-Okello and Issa Kikungwe respectively, as well as FDC’s Kassiano Wadri, would not receive funding for their offices.
In UK, Short Money is administered by the House of Commons authorities — the equivalent of the Parliamentary Commission.
Policy Development Grants
In the UK, these grants are provided to help parties prepare policies for inclusion in their manifestos. A £2m (sh7b) fund is distributed annually among political parties with two or more sitting MPs. Again, CP and JEEMA plus the parties that are not represented in Parliament would not qualify for the money. The NRM, DP, FDC and UPC would receive the same amount. Unlike the Short Money, this fund is administered by the Electoral Commission.
In addition to the two systems of public funding, other criteria like Match Funding and Grant Per Party Member may be considered.
Match Funding
This system is intended to encourage individuals to donate money to parties. For every person who donates to a party, the State also pays a proportion of the donation to that party. For example, if a person donated sh50,000 to DP, the State may give sh25,000 to DP — 50% of the donation. To ensure fairness, emphasis may be paid to small donations.
The law may state that donations below sh100,000 will attract a 50% counter-funding from the State, while those above sh100,000 will get less percentage in counter-funding. Thus if I donate sh2m to a party, the State may give only 1% (20,000) to that party while it gave sh25,000 (50%) for a sh50,000 donation. This way parties with rich members would not gain unfair advantage. The idea is that the more poor citizens participate in party activities, the better for democracy.
Grant Per Party Member
How much a party receives from public coffers may also depend on the number of members it has. This system would cover even members who do not make donations or pay subscription to their party, either because they have low income or no income. It can be argued that this system is better for democracy. A clear definition of a party member is important here, and parties would have to be prevented from ‘cooking’ membership figures.
Whatever mechanisms of funding are adopted, the public needs to be assured that the system is transparent since public money is involved.
The primary purpose of State funding of parties is to ensure that parties compete on the basis of policies and competence, not money. Therefore, in addition to direct State funding, there should be a ceiling on the amount that political parties can spend at elections. This calls for close scrutiny of party accounts. Interestingly, all parties which participated in the 2006 general election are yet to file full returns to the Electoral Commission. It is therefore not possible to say how much each party spent and whether that impacted on the outcome of the election.
A part from campaign expenditure, fundraising by parties is regulated in other counties. This is to avoid influence of wealthy party supporters who may make huge donations to parties so as to be favoured once the party is in power. In the US, Democratic Party frontrunner Hillary Clinton recently came under fire for accepting donations from lobbyists. The fear is that lobby groups, be it gays or businessmen, may push their agenda indirectly through funding parties or presidential candidates.
Rich people or big companies may be rewarded with public land, tax relief or interest-free loans from the Government for having bankrolled the ruling party during elections. Therefore, the law would have to state whether parties should be required to declare such donations. The law may state that individuals should not donate more than sh10m and organisations not more than sh30m, hoping this is the level where the public could see that donations could not buy influence.
The law should also determine how funds from the State to each party are distributed. Should the money go to the party headquarters or be sent in smaller amounts to branches nationwide? Lira Municipality MP (UPC) Jimmy Akena says party headquarters should receive all the money and be left to decide how it trickles down through the party structures.
The problem with Akena’s wish is that public funds may be used only at the headquarters, which means centralisation of political parties and less participation in party activities by the masses. This would mean that branch offices remain closed for failure to pay rent. Yet State funding of parties is normally intended to encourage more engagement with the electorate.
hkaheru@newvision.co.ug
VARIOUS officials have confirmed the Government’s intention to start funding political parties. Subsequently, party leaders are no longer concerned about whether the cash will flow, but rather how much and in what proportions. Will the State fund all registered political parties, big and small?
Will it be only those represented in Parliament, in which case only five out of a dozen or so would benefit? If it is only those with MPs, will they receive equal amount per year?
Will parties with more MPs receive more money, in which case JEEMA and CP with one MP each would get the least money? These and others are some of the questions for debate once a relevant Bill is introduced. However, some people want the debate to come before the Bill, not vice-versa.
In most countries, State funding of parties is not uniform and is both direct and indirect. In the United Kingdom, for example, there are two major forms of direct funding: Short Money and Policy Development Grants.
Short Money
Short Money is provided to opposition parties represented in the House by two or more MPs, or one sitting MP and more than 150,000 votes at the previous elections. If this system was adopted here, CP and JEEMA, with one MP each (Suzan Nampija and Hussein Kyanjo), would not qualify — and also veteran politician Bidandi Ssali’s PPP and Emmanuel Tumusiime’s FIL.
Short Money is meant to assist an opposition party in carrying out its parliamentary business; to cover its travel and associated expenses; and for running costs of the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The ruling party is not entitled because it can draw on public resources to run its parliamentary business.
In the case of Uganda, the NRM would not get the money because its Chief Whip is a Cabinet Minister while the Chairman is the President. The FDC would receive more money than UPC and DP because the Leader of Opposition, Prof. Ogenga Latigo, is their member. For example, in 2005-6 financial year, the Conservative Party (UK) received £4m (sh14b) while the Liberal Democrats received £1.5m (sh5.2b). The chief whips of UPC and DP, Okello-Okello and Issa Kikungwe respectively, as well as FDC’s Kassiano Wadri, would not receive funding for their offices.
In UK, Short Money is administered by the House of Commons authorities — the equivalent of the Parliamentary Commission.
Policy Development Grants
In the UK, these grants are provided to help parties prepare policies for inclusion in their manifestos. A £2m (sh7b) fund is distributed annually among political parties with two or more sitting MPs. Again, CP and JEEMA plus the parties that are not represented in Parliament would not qualify for the money. The NRM, DP, FDC and UPC would receive the same amount. Unlike the Short Money, this fund is administered by the Electoral Commission.
In addition to the two systems of public funding, other criteria like Match Funding and Grant Per Party Member may be considered.
Match Funding
This system is intended to encourage individuals to donate money to parties. For every person who donates to a party, the State also pays a proportion of the donation to that party. For example, if a person donated sh50,000 to DP, the State may give sh25,000 to DP — 50% of the donation. To ensure fairness, emphasis may be paid to small donations.
The law may state that donations below sh100,000 will attract a 50% counter-funding from the State, while those above sh100,000 will get less percentage in counter-funding. Thus if I donate sh2m to a party, the State may give only 1% (20,000) to that party while it gave sh25,000 (50%) for a sh50,000 donation. This way parties with rich members would not gain unfair advantage. The idea is that the more poor citizens participate in party activities, the better for democracy.
Grant Per Party Member
How much a party receives from public coffers may also depend on the number of members it has. This system would cover even members who do not make donations or pay subscription to their party, either because they have low income or no income. It can be argued that this system is better for democracy. A clear definition of a party member is important here, and parties would have to be prevented from ‘cooking’ membership figures.
Whatever mechanisms of funding are adopted, the public needs to be assured that the system is transparent since public money is involved.
The primary purpose of State funding of parties is to ensure that parties compete on the basis of policies and competence, not money. Therefore, in addition to direct State funding, there should be a ceiling on the amount that political parties can spend at elections. This calls for close scrutiny of party accounts. Interestingly, all parties which participated in the 2006 general election are yet to file full returns to the Electoral Commission. It is therefore not possible to say how much each party spent and whether that impacted on the outcome of the election.
A part from campaign expenditure, fundraising by parties is regulated in other counties. This is to avoid influence of wealthy party supporters who may make huge donations to parties so as to be favoured once the party is in power. In the US, Democratic Party frontrunner Hillary Clinton recently came under fire for accepting donations from lobbyists. The fear is that lobby groups, be it gays or businessmen, may push their agenda indirectly through funding parties or presidential candidates.
Rich people or big companies may be rewarded with public land, tax relief or interest-free loans from the Government for having bankrolled the ruling party during elections. Therefore, the law would have to state whether parties should be required to declare such donations. The law may state that individuals should not donate more than sh10m and organisations not more than sh30m, hoping this is the level where the public could see that donations could not buy influence.
The law should also determine how funds from the State to each party are distributed. Should the money go to the party headquarters or be sent in smaller amounts to branches nationwide? Lira Municipality MP (UPC) Jimmy Akena says party headquarters should receive all the money and be left to decide how it trickles down through the party structures.
The problem with Akena’s wish is that public funds may be used only at the headquarters, which means centralisation of political parties and less participation in party activities by the masses. This would mean that branch offices remain closed for failure to pay rent. Yet State funding of parties is normally intended to encourage more engagement with the electorate.
hkaheru@newvision.co.ug