By Mark DaCosta- Following the recent local government elections, the need for control of campaign funds has become overwhelmingly evident. And so, the idea of this series of articles was born.
In Part 1 of this series the term political financing was used to describe any contribution to a political cause. The fact that in Guyana, the only source of such financing is through private means, was emphasised, and the reality that the ruling People’s Progressive Party has, and will continue to use state-owned resources was mentioned.
(Please note that while the terms “political financing,” and “campaign financing” may have slightly different meanings – see Part 1 – for purposes of this series, the terms may be used interchangeably to mean, any political contribution whatsoever).
In Part 2 of this series, the opinions of experts will be noted, particularly on the context of the local realities. And the compelling case for regulation of political financing will be made.
Britannica makes the following point:
“Campaign finance raises fundamental ethical questions for democratic regimes. Most often, debates about campaign finance revolve around the protection of freedom of expression and the prevention of corruption, two democratic principles that can enter into conflict with one another. On the one hand, jurists have often considered financial participation in a campaign (either through donation or spending) to be a form of political expression that must be constitutionally protected from censorship. On the other hand, it is generally agreed that regulations and limits can justifiably be placed on campaign finance in order to prevent corruption.”
In Guyana – as is the case in other jurisdictions – large sums of money are often donated by wealthy business interests to political parties. It is well known that such business interests expect something in return. They may want preferential treatment, access to lucrative contracts, influence in the formulation of legislation, etc. But they always want something. The fact that they expect something from politicians in exchange for their donations may be inferred from the fact that – unlike some other countries, for example, the US – there is no major ideological difference between Guyana’s main political rivals. Instead, the deepest division is along racial lines. And while racial considerations may be in play, businesses are, first and foremost about making money, and that motive will always be the primary driver of their decisions and actions.
It should be evident by now that money can influence the outcome of political processes including elections. In fact, money can determine political outcomes. For example, it has been widely speculated that Alliance For Change (AFC) Member of Parliament (MP) Charandas Persaud was paid to vote with the then opposition PPP to topple Guyana’s Coalition government in December 2019. Obviously, money is a big part of the political picture.
It follows that if one wants to have a true democracy, political financing must be regulated.
One international researcher noted the following:
“The concept of political finance can affect various parts of a society’s institutions which support governmental and social success. Correct handling of political finance impacts a country’s ability to effectively maintain free and fair elections, effective governance, democratic government and regulation of corruption. The United Nations convention against Corruption, recognising this, encouraged its members to, ‘enhance transparency in the funding of candidatures for elected public office and, when applicable, the funding of political parties.'”
The case for regulating political financing has been affirmed by countless academic studies. For example, research done by the internationally recognised Electoral Systems researchers Magnus Öhman, Hani Zainulbhai, Jack Santucci, and Marcin Welecki identified several common understandings on what international society has determined integral to the regulation of political finance. The experts wrote:
Money is necessary for democratic politics, and political parties must have access to funds to play their part in the political process. Regulation must not curb healthy competition.
Money is never an unproblematic part of the political system, and regulation is desirable.
The context and political culture must be taken into account when devising strategies for controlling money in politics.
Effective regulation and disclosure can help to control adverse effects of the role of money in politics, but only if well conceived and implemented.
Effective oversight depends on activities in interaction by several stakeholders (such as regulators, civil society and the media) and based on transparency.
Having established the need for the regulation of political financing in Guyana, this series of articles will explore the relevant realities in our country, the nature of attempts at regulation in other territories, and, of course, what can be done locally.
