PUBLIC FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

24th March 2008 PRESS RELEASE

THE DRAFTED BILL ON PUBLIC FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES: AN IMPETUS TO NATIONAL DISASTER

Tomorrow Leaders Ghana (TLG) a registered youth and civil society organisation wishes to oppose the Bill on Public Funding of Political Parties. In line with this we also wish to state that the bill has neither any locus, nor ‘legal legs’ to walk on.

Crawling at a jerkingly-slow pace, the obviously unpopular idea of state funding of political parties, which was whispered some years ago, has succeeded in entering the House of Parliament. Since the IEA-sponsored bill, entitled Political Parties (Public Funding) Bill, was announced some weeks ago, the issue has become one of a serious interest, not only among city dwellers, but also among those who find themselves in the vast rural areas of the country. According to the memorandum to the Bill, “the principal source of money for the Fund will be VAT [Value Added Tax]”. This simply means that the Bill, if passed into Law, will come with an increase in the 15% VAT that the Ghanaian is already burdened with. A survey conducted, mostly outside the major cities by TLG clearly indicates how unpopular the idea of public funding of political parties is with the people. It is not in anyway amazing how all the major political parties in the country hail the bill even before they had opportunity to read it for the first time. The joy of the politician could not be overshadowed by the wails of the strong dissatisfaction of the people. This only makes it clear that the corn can never be adjudged innocent at the gathering of fowls? Based on this it would be no more be necessary to listen to the debate of our Members of Parliament when it comes to determining whether the people are in favour of this Bill. Clearly, this is one of the numerous occasions where the representatives of the people (in this case, Members of Parliament) are found not to be speaking the voice of the people they claim and are supposed to represent. The research/ legal department of TLG has taken laid hands on a copy of the memorandum to the draft Bill and would not hesitate to make its content known to the general public. The introduction of the memorandum stated three (3) reasons that validate the need for public funding of political parties. They are: i. That Articles 21(3), 54 and 56 of the Constitution, 1992, gives special and critical place to political parties in the country. ii. that the practice of public funding of political parties is on-going in some (not most) parts of the world. Countries mentioned included South Africa, Zimbabwe and Mali. iii. that Ghana already provides some support for political parties anyway Taking them one after the other TLG would make it known to the general public why this Bill should not even have been entertained in the public domain let alone considering its content.

TLG will proceed and indicate why political parties are not made any important by the constitution other than religious bodies and the media. Article 21(3) states “All citizens shall have the right and freedom to form or join political parties and to participate in political activities subject to such qualifications and laws as are necessary in a free and democratic society and are consistent with this Constitution” Similarly and under the same Chapter V of the Constitution, article 21 (1) also places the media and religion, for that matter religious bodies, on the same legal pedestal as political parties in the following words “All persons shall have the right to - (a) Freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media; (c) Freedom to practice any religion and to manifest such practice; Further, article 54, which was abundantly engaged by the drafters of this Bill that is currently lying before Parliament, to defend the frivolous reason why political parties should be given public funding states “The administrative expenses of the Electoral Commission including salaries, allowances and pensions payable to, or in respect of persons serving with the [Electoral] Commission, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund” After reading this article, one is left in the wonder as to how this provision could be a reasoned to mean that political parties should be selected and be given the tax payers money and not, religious groups, media houses, hospitals or schools. The question is, are political parties serving with the Commission? Article 56 of the 1992 constitution was also given in the memorandum as a reason why Ghanaians should be compulsorily made to contribute money to be used to fund political parties; article 56 thus states “Parliament shall have no power to enact a law to establish or authorise the establishment of a body or movement with the right or power to impose on the people of Ghana a common programme or a set of objectives of a religious or political” Again, it is clear from article 56, like the others, that anywhere the constitution deems it fit to guarantee political freedom, it also guarantees religious and press freedom. Thus the Constitution, 1992, which is the supreme law of this country, from which no other law, including the Acts of Parliament, should derogate does not in anyway place any higher premium on political parties than it places on religious and media organizations.

Moreover, what, in the above-mentioned articles (articles 21(3), 54 and 56) suggests that political parties should ever be given public funding, let alone now and even from the tax payers money? And even if we stretch the meaning of these articles to mean that the public should sponsor the institutions so mentioned under those articles, why should it be only political parties and not religious organisatons and the media; taking into consideration the contribution of the latter two as against the former?

It is therefore the contention of TLG, like the vast majority of the people in this country, that the above articles were used only as a camouflage to throw sawdust into the eyes of the public while smuggling this obviously unpopular Bill into our statutes. And as stated above, the House of Parliament for obvious reasons would surely not be the best place to test the popularity of a bill that seeks to burden the already-laden Ghanaian.

The second argument of the drafters of the Bill that public funding of political parties is practiced elsewhere for that matter it should necessarily be practiced in Ghana and should start in January 2009, is just another flaw in itself. The memorandum to the draft proudly mentioned some African countries where this practice is in force, namely, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Mali. TLG also took the pain to research into the political background of these countries and the revelations are worth making public.

South Africa at the fall of the Apartheid régime was so eager to include the black majority in mainstream politics and further place them on the same scale so as to close the gab between the well-resourced white politician and the vibrant but ill-resourced black politician. One of the ways of achieving this aim was to fund the political parties from public funds. Be it as it may, we are all aware of the glaring economic disparity between our beloved Ghana and the Republic of South Africa.

Taking Zimbabwe, another named African country; one needs not be in that country to know the political situation that exists therein when it comes to democracy and rule of law. It is worth noting at this point to ask the drafters and proponents of the Bill to provide the Ghanaian public with the number of political parties that benefit from public funding in Zimbabwe apart from the Mugabe-led ruling party (ZANU PF). The least said about Zimbabwe the better.

Mention is also made of Mali. The Mali situation should perhaps take us to the origin of the idea of public funding of the political parties. The idea of public funding of political parties originated to enhance democracy and multi-party system in states that have suffered the ill consequences of oppression resulting from tyranny and dictatorship. Such states in their resolution to whip up general interest in politics and to entrench multi party democracy viewed the public funding approach as one of the means to end dictatorship.

Taking the situation in Ghana today vis a vis general participation in party politics, one would be so blind to even assume that we find ourselves in situation where we can say multi party democracy is under threat. Since the last general elections in 2004, in which five different political parties presented presidential candidates, at least four new political parties have been registered and the count is still on-going. No need talking about the massive number of political parties that fielded candidates in the 2000 presidential elections.

Independent candidates, both in presidential and parliamentary elections, are springing up everywhere in anticipation of the 2008 elections. In the light of these, how could one reasonably come to the conclusion that Ghana is in the same situation as Mali so to require whipping up of public interest in contesting for political offices by levying the Ghanaian to fund political parties? Do we have to jump into a practice just because other African Countries are doing same?

Finally, the third point hastily stated in the memorandum is that, the public through the Electoral Commission and from the Consolidated Fund is already providing some kind of support to political parties anyway. Aside the fact that we as a people have failed to withdraw such support from political parties in the year 2000 when the country witnessed the highest proliferation of political parties, we have also not been able to hold the beneficiaries of this support accountable to the tax payer.

It was amazing when the Electoral Commission released the list of political parties which have, as at the end of last year, not submitted their annual audited accounts. In fact, it is even another matter appreciating the type of accounts they even submit considering what we all see these parties spend on the ground during campaigns.

Clause 3(b) of the drafted bill states that the source of money for the fund shall be as follows ‘Grants, donations, gifts, devises and other voluntary contributions to the Fund (VAT induced-a projection of 2.5% TAX) from any sources whether originating within or outside the Republic, whether by foreigners or citizens of Ghana. Clearly the proponents of the bill have not envisaged the looming danger of influence from foreign nationals.

Moreover in the US Political Parties engage in internal fundraising to support the party. It is the responsibility of party members to contribute to their party and if IEA says that the Political Parties Act (Act 574) creates cost for political parties then let us amend the Act to reflect current trends rather than introducing this unpopular Bill.

A careful study of the Bill by TLG reveals its confusionist approach and it’s inconsistency with the spirit and letter of the Constitution of Ghana. The Constitution gives an individual the right to join or form any political party but on the other hand the drafted Bill makes it a responsibility and mandatory for the same individual to pay tax to fund a political party which he/she has the right and freedom to join.

Truly, democracy is one of the keys to national development but the latter precedes the former hence the need for us to invest into development so as to achieve representative democracy. How resourceful will it be if we increase the escalating number of ‘hungry democrats’ in the country? Such funds should be directed towards education, health and agriculture.

Indeed, the proponents may be able to provide us with an endless list of merits and good legal analysis of the clauses making up the Bill but obviously they have failed in telling the Ghanaian why he/she should even consider the whole idea of political parties being funded by the tax payer. Certainly also, we the opponents of this Bill may not be able to debunk all the legal viability of the individual clauses that make up the Bill but clearly we see no reason why any practical body would entertain the idea of the tax payer funding the politician in this our country. The million Ghana Cedi question, thus, is “is it a prudent choice now?”

With all these deficiencies, the proponents as well as the drafters of this Bill, which has grown so unpopular at conception, should simply admit the fact that they have failed to tell us why the Ghanaian should be taxed to expand the budget of the politician. Undoubtedly this is beyond the consideration of Parliament; the tax payer must be heard dictating the tune this time round!

Tomorrow Leaders Ghana (TLG) thus opposes this Bill and calls for a National Exercise in fundraising techniques/ Skills for Political Parties in Ghana. We also call on the drafters to do their home work well before presenting documents of this nature to the public. To this end we wish to state that the youth of today shall bear the consequences of the decisions made today hence the urgent need to hear our case.

…………………………………………… RICHARD ABBEY JNR PROJECTS COORDINATOR +233 244 469 369

TOMORROW LEADERS GHANA (TLG) was incorporated in Accra, Ghana, under the Companies Code, 1963, (Act 179) on October 1, 2007. TLG is also registered with the National Youth Council (NYC) in accordance with NRC Decree 241 (1974) on December 3, 2007