In a recent paper on Electoral Reform, published in l?express of Monday 5th January 2004, I broached the subject of money used for the funding of political parties which is widely believed to constitute one of the most serious problems facing democratic governments today.

As such, it would have been a glaring example of missed opportunity if the Commission on Constitutional and Electoral Reform set up in late 2001, under the chairmanship of Justice Albie Sachs of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, were not entrusted with the task of looking thoroughly into this issue. However, the manner in which the Commission was required to treat the subject invited a few raised eye- brows, since the term of reference requested the Commission to straightaway propose ?a draft Public Funding of Political Parties Bill?. Even the Commission found it expedient, while quoting the relevant extract from the last Presidential address, to comment on it in the following terms: ?basic political decisions are taken about a measure and the draft legislation is elaborated. We have been invited to reverse the process, that is, to draft a Bill so as to provide focussed political decision.?

In his address to the National Assembly, following the 2000 general elections, the President of the Republic announced ? in very clear terms ? that ?Government will introduce a Public Funding of political Parties Bill with a view to promoting sound, dynamic and lively democracy and eliminating the risks of corruption and influence peddling.? In this respect, the Commission was only required to act as Parliamentary Counsel! But it went further, as we shall see later.

I shall try and analyse, in this paper, the fundamental role of political parties in a democracy and how relevant and important for the effectiveness of their role is political funding or political money.

<B> Political money or corruption</B>

In Mauritius, as in many other democratic countries, political parties are either taken for granted or worse, considered as a necessary evil.There may be good reasons for such contemptuous attitude towards political parties but it must also be remembered and acknowledged that democracy cannot function without political parties. They are essential for both sustainable democracy and good governance. Attempts to build democracy without political parties and to establish direct democracy have failed while countries without political parties are considered as dictatorships and kept at bay.

In all western democracies, political parties have provided the orientation for individuals and groups of citizens. As of today, political parties are the only institutions in a democracy which carry out all the functions necessary for the democratic process. Karl-Heinz Nassmacher, German Professor of Political Science, has enumerated those functions in the following terms:

? Parties mediate or arbitrate between a pluralistic society and its political institutions of government.

? Parties organise political campaigns in order to mobilize voters to participate in an election.

? Parties recruit political personnel by selecting and nominating candidates who stand for public office in an election.

? Parties aggregate a plurality of interests into a reasonable number of political alternatives or policy options and channel conflicts between government and opposition.

? Parties enable people to generate a plurality of opinions in public debate, elaborate projects or proposals for society and transform policy options into political decisions.

In Africa, where there are a number of emerging and new democracies, following the end of the cold war and as a result of both internal and external pressures, the multi-party system was functioning, in 2002, in all but eight countries. They have all realised that political parties are as important for democracies as are elections, parliament, the judiciary, the executive and a free press.

It would be a truism to say that for them to function properly, political parties require money. In the competition for political power in democracies, money is indeed instrumental: money and politics are therefore inextricably entwined and will stay that way. The sooner we come to realise that the money/politics equation is not taboo, the better will it be for our own democracy.

However, one should also recognise that the main reason for disillusionment and even contempt towards political parties and politics generally, is what is perceived as an ?excessive intrusion of money into politics.? This is why there exists a strong case for legislation to provide for financing of political parties to enable them to play the role expected of them and simultaneously, to provide for the control of parties? finance in order to prevent unethical or even criminal practices.

The public image of parties is increasingly marred by the tarnish of corruption. Charges of corruption against politicians in developed and developing countries and scandals around the financing of political parties are ever present in the news-media. These charges may not always or necessarily be true but they nonetheless contribute to the negative image of politicians and political parties generally, especially when highly placed individuals or high profile personalities and even respected Heads of States are allegedly involved.

Reference here to some of the scandals that have, in recent years, made news headlines around the world has the sole objective of placing the issue of politics-related corruption in its proper perspective, to show the vulnerability of the political class and in proven cases, that there are no lengths certain political leaders will not go in their bid to achieve or cling to power.

In the year 2000, the prestigious French newspaper

Le Monde published tape recordings implicating President Chirac in a kickback scheme allegedly providing finance for his party, the RPR. Presidents in France, as indeed in many countries including Mauritius, enjoy immunity from prosecution as long as they are in office. The matter was therefore not pursued further. In the same year was revealed the involvement of the oil company Elf Aquitaine and the late French President François Mitterrand in what has been termed Kohlgate. Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was forced to resign from his party ? the CDU ? following accusations of illegal donations of that Company to the CDU while he was Chancellor.

Earlier, in 1997, in the UK, the newly elected Labour Government of Tony Blair was accused of changing its policy concerning tobacco advertising on television during the screening of the Grand Prix Motor racing events after receiving a US$ 1.4 million donations from the beneficiary of that decision.This did not prevent the British Prime Minister and his Labour Party from coming back to power at the following general elections. (?)

We must have realised by now how prominent a political issue is corruption and how ?irregular and illegal? funding of politics can contribute to undermine the democratic system.

<B>The costs of democracy</B>

If political parties along with electoral commissions, independent judiciary and free media are essential democratic tools, it stands to reason that they should be in a position to generate income to play the role that is theirs as effectively as possible. They have to meet, as any other organisation, their staff salaries, office expenses and other running costs and especially to participate in electoral campaigns and eventually win elections.

What are the common sources of income of political parties? For democracies generally, and new democracies in particular, party income comes from local fund-raising by party activists, donations by party members and sympathisers, return on investment portfolios, where they exist, and public funding. These would constitute what can be described as revenues compatible with democracy.

But parties are also funded by interest groups, lobbyists and corporate bodies and in many cases, benefit from kickbacks from recipients of government contracts and donations from foreign sources (multinationals and foreign governments). In other instances, the use and abuse of state resources, usually available to the ruling parties, is a corrupt form of massive public financing, which is used to build ?electoral war chests?.

In Mauritius, political parties have so far enjoyed privileged relations with money. They are the only organisations, handling at times, particularly during election periods, millions of rupees for which they are accountable to no authority or official body. They operate in the most obscure of manners, have no obligation of submitting any audited accounts and owe no explanation to anyone, including their own members. Duties of transparency do not apply to them and grapevine has it that while minting money, political parties have become the ideal organisations where money can be laundered or washed clean, with impunity. Corporate bodies do contribute, and quite massively too, to political parties? chests. Yet, it is not known whether such contribution does appear or not in their statement of accounts, or whether there exists in some of them a ?black kitty?, with income and expenditure appearing in a treacherous?carnet la boutique?, which on occasion arising, can publicly reveal the names of those associated or not with political parties who have regularly benefitted from those irregular funds.

Under present legislation, a political party can spend as much as it wants and as much as it can afford for the election of its candidates. The only regulations which exist in that field relate to the expenses which candidates for an election are legally authorised to spend during an electoral campaign. These expenses, which are in the range of Rs 150,000 and Rs 250,000, are expected to cover the costs of the publication and diffusion of electoral manifestos and model ballot papers for each constituency, printing of different types of posters, canvassing of voters and holding of private and public meetings.

It is an open secret that this paltry sum is massively inflated, supplemented by the political parties to which the candidates belong. And nobody can do much about it, neither the Electoral Commissioner nor the Electoral Supervisory Commission. Elections are no doubt free and fair here, but they may be improved and rendered ?free-er and fair-er? by regulating political finance.

Level playing field</B>