IEA wants public finance of political parties?

“…Political change often hinges on the general public’s access to information…(R)epressive governments often maintain tight control over information and prohibit the open discussion of “sensitive” topics. Conversely, participatory democracies have an informed electorate and an open dialogue with policymakers, thus enabling the general public to assess data on government policies…, express support or dissent, and ultimately influence future policies…Useful access, however, requires more than the disclosure of raw data; it requires reliable intermediaries – media, think tanks, associations, research, writers, and others – to sort the data and provide sound analysis. Armed with information from diverse and reliable sources, the public has true freedom of choice on candidates and policies…” (Center for International Private Enterprise).

“…The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA)…said adopting the proposed public funding for political parties was necessary to curb corruption and enhance internal party democracy…"Without Public Funding, a few financially endowed members who contribute to the parties would hijack and treat parties as personal property…Sources of Funding, it said,…(would include)…two and half percent of total VAT…” (Ghanaweb, 4 April 2008)

What priority, Institute of Economic Affairs!

I must say that one of the depressing things about commentators on Ghanaweb is this: Most commentators do not care for process improvements to Ghana’s democratic dispensation. The recent call by the Accra-based Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) IEA for public finance of political parties and political campaigns to be funded by 2.5% of VAT is of that order. That piece garnered exactly 9 comments from 4 individuals after 4 days. But that is not to say it is not an important issue. Can you imaging 10% of the “two and half percent of total VAT” collected every month disappearing from the public coffers into the private pockets of corrupt government official and powerful citizens in Accra?

But that is exactly what the IEA is setting Ghana up for. Prof Lungu does not know what interest the IEA represents. We know that the IEA is a “Free Enterprise” Think Tank modeled after the IEA in the UK. But seems to me the IEA is putting the cart before the horse. Why doesn’t the IEA put some energy into the Asset Declaration law? And what about the stalled Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill. After all, isn’t “Open Society” directly a part of their mission, compared to “Public Finance of Political Parties? Or is it because there is more influence with taxing and divvying up monies, than making elected officials do the right thing? Yes, taxing and divvying up monies! That is probably more sexy and “bottom-line-founded,” isn’t it? That is speaking for and about power. It is a far cry from speaking truth to power.

So I did some checking to get an idea what the IEA is, whose interest it may be representing in this case, and how. I will provide a critique of their proposal shortly.

In the first place, I was unable to find a working website for the IEA in Ghana. If the IEA in Ghana is www.ieaghana.org,” then what you get when you Google/Yahoo search is this:

“…www.ieaghana.org - This page is parked free, courtesy of Cheap-DomainRegistration.com...”

Makes me wonder how much effort and resources the IEA devotes to “open society” and “good governance,” if we are having difficulty finding them on the internet today. Consider that “A major part of IEA's activities has been designed to promote the establishment of an open society, the achievement of good governance, and the entrenchment of multiparty democracy.” According to the IEA, the IEA was founded in 1989 as an “Independent NGO.” In 2004, the IEA had an annual budget of $1 million, and a staff of 20 (5 research, 15 administrative/support, 5 visiting, 3 interns). Dr. Charles Mensah is CEO and Mrs. Jean Mensah is Administrator and Public Relations Director). But this paper is not about these individuals. This critique is about their proposal for public funding of political parties in Ghana.

I think that the IEA idea is a lousy one. It is a bad idea because it is poorly timed and poorly conceptualized. It is a lousy idea because it flies in the face of priority and judicious use of public resources. It is a bad idea because it will not contribute an iota to the fight for accountability and transparency in government. That, my friends, is the important thing.

The IEA proposal is poorly timed because no effort is being made by the current administration to tame corruption and the perception of corruption from the halls of government. The IEA ought to know that. It is poorly timed because the IEA is not fighting for enforcement of the Asset Declaration law, nor is the IEA at the forefront of the fight for quick passage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill. In that sense, the IEA seems to have no interest in “governing process.” That is sad. Why throw in more public resources under there circumstances?

Closely related to timing is “Priority.” Most people will tell the IEA that there is simply more important things to use the 2.5% of total VAT funds and the interest accruing thereof, than providing funding to politicians in government many of whom now use public resources to fund their private needs without accountability. The clear priorities, in this regard, would be the Asset Declaration law and the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill (FOIB). That is the more accountable route. Do that and let us see how Ghana institutionalizes respect for the public purse. Yes, do that! Then maybe public finance of elections (not parties)!

ITEM: Maybe the IEA will show us how many reports they have sponsored on the Freedom Information Bill, the Sunshine Law, and Asset Declaration, and what they are doing with those reports, considering they are a non-profit, apolitical entity.

Moving forward, the IEA proposal for public finance of political parties is conceptually unsound. According to IEA, “…public funding of political parties would not necessarily lead to the formation of mushroom political parties since the package would be based on requirements such as number of votes obtained in the last general elections.” Can we not argue then that public finance of political parties would entrench existing politicians who in principle would now use their private resources, on top of what the people will provide? And if “entrenchment of multiparty democracy” is an IEA goal, why is the IEA worried about the “formation of mushroom political parties”? How many political parties would be enough for the IEA?

And who is the IEA to state categorically that appropriation of 2.5% of total VAT to fund political parties “would not increase the tax burden of Ghanaians”? Really? Would that be part of the IEA program to “promote private-sector-led economic development” for Ghana? Question for the IEA is why take from the little pockets of little people to support political parties when many people probably do not agree that it will serve the little man in today’s Ghana? Why is it that the IEA is not asking the people first, if the IEA has the interest of the people at bottom?

IEA, we disagree!

Your idea has no capacity to create “Strong and effective leaders who would tackle the country's problems effectively.” It would be another layer of fraud and unnecessary taxation on the people, akin to the Telephone Talk tax that suffered the shameful defeat. In fact, your idea is even worse than the Telephone Talk tax.

Deal with the fundamentals and process improvement first. Spend some resources on the fundamentals of Asset Declaration and Freedom of Information bill. And do not forget the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) findings that now is languishing in the Attorney Generals office, just like the Freedom of Information Bill (FOIB).

Further, we disagree that public finance of political parties is a useful way to advance the cause of the Ghanaian woman in politics. Clearly, the IEA cannot tell us that it is the best (most effective) way to support women in politics. Again, let us stay with the basics. Let us put emphasis on education and equal access to training and employment. Fund some targets (scholarship!) for Ghanaian women in Ghana’s public institutions.

Spend sometime and chew on these things!

ITEM: Can the IEA tell us they do not receive funds from the Government of Ghana or any one of the political parties in Ghana? How much have they received and for what? And if they have, can they tell us they are truly independent of Ghanaian politicians, political parties, and public officials? Can the IEA, in good conscience now propose this tax on the people of Ghana without asking for full, complete, and timely accountability? And who is the IEA accountable to? Who is the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) rooting for?

Give us a break!

Prof Lungu Tokyo, Japan 9 April 2008

Email: professor.lungu@yahoo.com