One important issue that President Kufuor has been commenting on since he assumed the leadership of the nation is a national debate on the funding of political parties. And any time he makes the call it seems it does not get the support of key resource people and institutions on which the country’s political parties development and our democracy greatly rest on.
Due to poverty and lack of resources such calls from the president are immediately kicked floating as ‘inappropriate’ at this point in time that we are so much challenged with many economic issues.
But if we as a nation want to develop, promote and defend our democracy for our own development and well-being, then we need to heed to President Kufuor’s call no matter how stressful we find our economy.
In 1992, we all complained about the way political parties handled their financial responsibilities during the campaign. Four years later we revisited the issue again without learning any lessons. Then in 2000 only God knows the number of accusations and counter accusations that arose concerning gross dissipation of financial resources by political parties.
In 2004 the issue cropped up again and some people even went to the extent of blaming the Electoral Commission for not implementing its monitoring policies effectively to bring the parties in check concerning their funding. But what can the EC do in the face of our inability to ferment a national policy on the funding of political activities.
I believe with the experiences that the president has gone through in his life as a politician we do not need any one more than him to share his opinion before we act on this issue. Surely, he knows the value of appropriate and legitimate funding of political parties to democracy and knows exactly why that issue has been on his heart many times. Or may be like the usual Ghanaian attitude- we act only when a foreign consultant makes an input and tells us what to do, there we will forget our poverty and act.
The strength and health of political parties to a much greater extent determine the strength and success, and effectively sustain our democracy. If for any reason our parties suffer, then surely we are denting the spirit and future of our democracy.
It is not that there is not much support for the issue but that we are afraid to risk venturing in the unknown. In a CDD survey report on “Political Party Funding in Ghana” in 2005, 53% of the surveyed population supported the state funding against 43% and 4% who said no and unknown respectively. To be frank this analysis clearly indicates that it is not possible to get an overwhelming support for any political issue as the percentages reflect our voting pattern (about 53% for NPP, 43% for NDC and the rest are the 4% since 2000 elections; 57.4% for NDC, 39.6% for NPP, 3% for the rest in 1996). This means we should begin to accept that such support trend will continue to constitute who the majority is and who the minority will be- for us not to be wasting time on getting overwhelming support before we move on.
We can all attest that here is a continuous decline in the trust that the public have in politicians and the ‘secrecy’ surrounding how they finance their activities, and the lack of formal financing structure within the framework of political parties is partly to be blamed. This tendency has led to significant fallout of electoral programmes, and which effectively erodes the strength of our democracy. People are very sceptical about the sources of funds that politician access to finance their activities. Hence, any time that someone is appointed to a position, we try to deduce the financial contribution of the appointee to the success of the appointer without assessing whether the person merits the position or not.
Many are questioning the rate at which some aspirants are dolling out monies and wonder where the monies are coming from. But in a society where there is no attempt to structure our political institutions operationally and financially, how can we determine whether people are going above the limits. Party funding is left hanging until election years and the only avenue for people to be successful in leading our parties is largely through ‘cash-out’.
State funding is not all about putting monies into the accounts of political parties. However, it sets the limits and specifies the avenues through which we can finance political programmes. It also support the machinery of political parties to be effective and active as a civil society institution supporting the education and training of the leadership of our society for the good of democracy all year round.
State funding also goes with responsible accountability where state monies and other funding are duly accounted for within the spirit and dictates of our laws. It will significantly help parties to develop their human resources so that selecting people for leadership positions as and when they become available will not be based on who has the ‘big cash exhaust.’
It is also important we make political parties to be owned by the masses who support them. And this can happened when people understand the ideologies behind what they are supporting through education, and it is important to note that no individual will ever give resources for such all important activities that will strengthen democracy and constitutional governance because we see it as a social good.
Fighting corruption in election financing can only bear fruits if the state is made to be part of the sources that parties can solicit for funds, and in this way too the state will be placed in a position in which it can monitor the other operational sources and the personalities involved in raising funds.
State involvement in the financing of political parties will also help parties to be protected from corrupt and greedy elements that end up taking over entire party structures and property for their own whim and caprice. We often hear of party cars, computers and other resources stolen by some individuals for the simple reason that there is no concerted approach institutionalising our parties within the confines of the state laws, hence the personality clout we face in our entire political systems in our society.
Why are our politics full of insults, insinuations and sycophants? People are not educated on a consistent and sustainable basis for them to appreciate the essence of party activities for the good of our democracy, and such education should be seen as the provision of social commodity that the state should be made to play a part.
With the growing interest shown in our democracy through the political parties, we need to place the state in a strategic position for it to capitalise on the available opportunities to educate the masses on issues of civil liberties, constitutional provisions, human rights, the citizenry and their responsibilities and above all clarifying the alternatives in our choice for who can better lead our society for us to achieve our individual and national aspirations. And this can materialise if the state support the financial responsibilities of political parties in their determination to provide the nation with leaders and managers worthy of our trust and confidence and for the benefit of the state.
The experiences of countries like Germany, Sweden, and Denmark for instance are there for us to share. In Germany in particular the formation of political foundations to carry out the day to day educational programmes of political parties and their ideologies and policies (supported with state funds) has helped to shape the post-war Germany into a beacon of how political party-state funds dialogue can heal the wounds of a scattered society.
Talk of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (affiliated to SPD), Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung (affiliated to FDP), Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung (affiliated to CSU), Heinrich-Boell-Stiftung (affiliated to Green Party), Konrad Adenaeurd Stiftung etc are all lessons we can learn from. Interestingly, many of them have been instrumental in shaping our current democratic dispensation.
So fellow Ghanaian, we need to rise up and do something before it became difficult for us concerning state funding of political parties. We are almost 16 years into our journey down democracy and the experiences we have gathered so far on the show of financial affluence during election periods should signal to us that something must be done. And the earlier it is done the better.
The President will also be seen to accord his calls with some seriousness if he used his last 17-months to put into action the debate process of the policy of political funding by the state before the high profile momentum dies out. So Mr President let us Ghana knows why your are much adamant about the debate for politcal parties' funding.
Let us not be sidelined on something we believe can help our democracy because of our poverty. State funding of our parties is healthy for our democracy. Till we meet again on another issue keep the debate burning.
One important issue that President Kufuor has been commenting on since he assumed the leadership of the nation is a national debate on the funding of political parties. And any time he makes the call it seems it does not get the support of key resource people and institutions on which the country’s political parties development and our democracy greatly rest on.
Due to poverty and lack of resources such calls from the president are immediately kicked floating as ‘inappropriate’ at this point in time that we are so much challenged with many economic issues.
But if we as a nation want to develop, promote and defend our democracy for our own development and well-being, then we need to heed to President Kufuor’s call no matter how stressful we find our economy.
In 1992, we all complained about the way political parties handled their financial responsibilities during the campaign. Four years later we revisited the issue again without learning any lessons. Then in 2000 only God knows the number of accusations and counter accusations that arose concerning gross dissipation of financial resources by political parties.
In 2004 the issue cropped up again and some people even went to the extent of blaming the Electoral Commission for not implementing its monitoring policies effectively to bring the parties in check concerning their funding. But what can the EC do in the face of our inability to ferment a national policy on the funding of political activities.
I believe with the experiences that the president has gone through in his life as a politician we do not need any one more than him to share his opinion before we act on this issue. Surely, he knows the value of appropriate and legitimate funding of political parties to democracy and knows exactly why that issue has been on his heart many times. Or may be like the usual Ghanaian attitude- we act only when a foreign consultant makes an input and tells us what to do, there we will forget our poverty and act.
The strength and health of political parties to a much greater extent determine the strength and success, and effectively sustain our democracy. If for any reason our parties suffer, then surely we are denting the spirit and future of our democracy.
It is not that there is not much support for the issue but that we are afraid to risk venturing in the unknown. In a CDD survey report on “Political Party Funding in Ghana” in 2005, 53% of the surveyed population supported the state funding against 43% and 4% who said no and unknown respectively. To be frank this analysis clearly indicates that it is not possible to get an overwhelming support for any political issue as the percentages reflect our voting pattern (about 53% for NPP, 43% for NDC and the rest are the 4% since 2000 elections; 57.4% for NDC, 39.6% for NPP, 3% for the rest in 1996). This means we should begin to accept that such support trend will continue to constitute who the majority is and who the minority will be- for us not to be wasting time on getting overwhelming support before we move on.
We can all attest that here is a continuous decline in the trust that the public have in politicians and the ‘secrecy’ surrounding how they finance their activities, and the lack of formal financing structure within the framework of political parties is partly to be blamed. This tendency has led to significant fallout of electoral programmes, and which effectively erodes the strength of our democracy. People are very sceptical about the sources of funds that politician access to finance their activities. Hence, any time that someone is appointed to a position, we try to deduce the financial contribution of the appointee to the success of the appointer without assessing whether the person merits the position or not.
Many are questioning the rate at which some aspirants are dolling out monies and wonder where the monies are coming from. But in a society where there is no attempt to structure our political institutions operationally and financially, how can we determine whether people are going above the limits. Party funding is left hanging until election years and the only avenue for people to be successful in leading our parties is largely through ‘cash-out’.
State funding is not all about putting monies into the accounts of political parties. However, it sets the limits and specifies the avenues through which we can finance political programmes. It also support the machinery of political parties to be effective and active as a civil society institution supporting the education and training of the leadership of our society for the good of democracy all year round.
State funding also goes with responsible accountability where state monies and other funding are duly accounted for within the spirit and dictates of our laws. It will significantly help parties to develop their human resources so that selecting people for leadership positions as and when they become available will not be based on who has the ‘big cash exhaust.’
It is also important we make political parties to be owned by the masses who support them. And this can happened when people understand the ideologies behind what they are supporting through education, and it is important to note that no individual will ever give resources for such all important activities that will strengthen democracy and constitutional governance because we see it as a social good.
Fighting corruption in election financing can only bear fruits if the state is made to be part of the sources that parties can solicit for funds, and in this way too the state will be placed in a position in which it can monitor the other operational sources and the personalities involved in raising funds.
State involvement in the financing of political parties will also help parties to be protected from corrupt and greedy elements that end up taking over entire party structures and property for their own whim and caprice. We often hear of party cars, computers and other resources stolen by some individuals for the simple reason that there is no concerted approach institutionalising our parties within the confines of the state laws, hence the personality clout we face in our entire political systems in our society.
Why are our politics full of insults, insinuations and sycophants? People are not educated on a consistent and sustainable basis for them to appreciate the essence of party activities for the good of our democracy, and such education should be seen as the provision of social commodity that the state should be made to play a part.
With the growing interest shown in our democracy through the political parties, we need to place the state in a strategic position for it to capitalise on the available opportunities to educate the masses on issues of civil liberties, constitutional provisions, human rights, the citizenry and their responsibilities and above all clarifying the alternatives in our choice for who can better lead our society for us to achieve our individual and national aspirations. And this can materialise if the state support the financial responsibilities of political parties in their determination to provide the nation with leaders and managers worthy of our trust and confidence and for the benefit of the state.
The experiences of countries like Germany, Sweden, and Denmark for instance are there for us to share. In Germany in particular the formation of political foundations to carry out the day to day educational programmes of political parties and their ideologies and policies (supported with state funds) has helped to shape the post-war Germany into a beacon of how political party-state funds dialogue can heal the wounds of a scattered society.
Talk of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (affiliated to SPD), Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung (affiliated to FDP), Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung (affiliated to CSU), Heinrich-Boell-Stiftung (affiliated to Green Party), Konrad Adenaeurd Stiftung etc are all lessons we can learn from. Interestingly, many of them have been instrumental in shaping our current democratic dispensation.
So fellow Ghanaian, we need to rise up and do something before it became difficult for us concerning state funding of political parties. We are almost 16 years into our journey down democracy and the experiences we have gathered so far on the show of financial affluence during election periods should signal to us that something must be done. And the earlier it is done the better.
The President will also be seen to accord his calls with some seriousness if he used his last 17-months to put into action the debate process of the policy of political funding by the state before the high profile momentum dies out. So Mr President let us Ghana knows why your are much adamant about the debate for politcal parties' funding.
Let us not be sidelined on something we believe can help our democracy because of our poverty. State funding of our parties is healthy for our democracy. Till we meet again on another issue keep the debate burning.
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
