Political actors cast aspersions on Political Parties Finance Act
Sibahle Ndlovu
Politicians in Matabeleland have said the Political Parties (Finance) Act has numerous loopholes making it fertile ground for corruption.
The promulgation of Political Parties (Finance) Act two decades ago extended state funding to political parties as a way of opening and sustaining the democratic space to multiple players.
Further, the Act banned political parties and candidates from receiving foreign donations, with offenders facing a fine equivalent to the amount received.
Democracy and legal watchdog, Veritas Zimbabwe revealed that “since the promulgation of the law (Political Parties Act) no political party has been prosecuted for breaching it despite frequent claims that political parties allegedly receive substantial funding for electioneering from Western countries, China and Russia.
It is for reasons such as these that the Act has attracted criticism for being a platform for abuse of state and donated funds.
ZAPU Spokesperson Mso Ndlovu notes that there is need for mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability among recipients of state funding to avoid misuse.
“While the idea is noble as far as avoiding external funding is concerned, it is however impotent because there are no mechanisms to audit and account for tax payers money. In the end, it becomes a free for all for those with access,” said Ndlovu.
This year alone ZWL$1 500 000 000 was allocated to political parties. Of this amount Z$1 050 540 000 was paid to the ruling ZANU-PF party, which received 70 per cent of the votes cast in the 2018 general election, and the remaining Z$449 550 000 went to the MDC Alliance in accordance with section 3(2) of the Act.
However, none of the recipients of the funds have publicly declared how the funds received yearly have been utilised since the law came into effect.
This is despite Section 8 of the Act stipulating that “the Minister of Justice can make regulations providing for political parties to keep public records of finances received.”
Ndlovu stated that the state finances have become political parties’ enrichment schemes meant to strengthen their hold on power.
“The whole idea for funding political parties is not designed to benefit the people. It is designed to entrench these parties and help them retain their dominance or upset their opponents.
Instead, a community based formula based on devolution would better benefit our people with resources allocated towards developmental projects than political parties,” said Ndlovu.
He also took a swipe at the Act’s provision which requires a political party to obtain at least 5 percent of the votes cast in an election to qualify for state funding.
According to Ndlovu this provision is exclusive and against the principles of democracy.
“It is unfortunate that the same democracy which came about from blood and sweat of the masses is now being auctioned to the highest bidder on the basis of arithmetic formulas. No voice should be too small to be heard or accounted for in a normal society.”
Mthwakazi Republic Party (MRP) President Mqondisi Moyo shared the ZAPU Spokesperson’s views.
Moyo accused some recipients of the fund of channelling the money towards violence or for personal use.
“In most cases, state funding lacks transparency in fund usage. Certain parties have a habit of channelling the funds towards sponsored violence. Others misappropriate the funds for leaders’ personal use. Parties must submit an audit of state funds to treasury if accountability is to be enhanced,” said Moyo.
MRP leader urged the government to pursue a more inclusive approach whereby registered political parties also get assistance from the state coffers to ensure sustainability.
“If a political party has been registered as per the relevant Act, why should it be denied state funding even if it has not garnered at least 5% of the vote? All parties should be eligible for state funding as long as it is registered according to state law.
“All parties should be able to carry out their activities and meet their financial demands. The funding is meant to be a leverage towards such expenses. Denying a party state funding because it has not obtained the stipulated percentage is a limitation of the Party’s financial potential,” he said.
Zimbabwe, however does not require political parties to register. While political organisations can be freely established without any registration, the parties are required to register with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) for purposes of contesting elections.
A study by the Zimbabwe Elections Support Network (ZESN) contends that “the law governing public funding of political parties in Zimbabwe, the Political Parties (Finance) Act, is not a perfect law. The law must be explicit as to why political parties should receive funding from the State, that is to promote political pluralism and truly democratic practices in the country.”
Khumbulani Maphosa who is the Coordinator of Matabeleland Institute for Human Rights (MIHR) expressed the view that the electorate cannot expect political parties to be transparent about finances if they are failing to exercise transparency with basics such as internal elections and upholding human rights.
Maphosa equated such expectations with “putting the cart before the horses.”
“I think we are still far from looking for accountability from political parties, our democracy has not reached that level.
“We need to first talk about accountability on candidate selection, and also in terms of the human rights principles of elections such as hate speech, bussing children to rallies and many other instances where political parties have blatantly disregarded the Constitution.
When we have matured enough then we start addressing issues of who funded which party, where did they get funds from. My bible says ‘if you have been outrun by those on feet you can’t run with those on horsebacks,” emphasised Maphosa.
Veritas Zimbabwe notes that problems arising from the Act need to be resolved if Zimbabwe is to become a true multi-party democracy.
