Funding parties, buying favours

Elections, many argue, are won first in the media, then at the polls. The party that successfully saturates radio, television, print media and (increasingly today) online with its message is the party that wins. In the age of ‘spin-doctoring’ the media consultants and advertising companies vote early and vote often — at a price.  One might argue that elections can be ‘bought’ without bribery of voters. If you have enough campaign funding you ‘take’ the country.

I recently heard an opposition party leader complain about this issue. He recounted how many businesspersons would pull him to one side at receptions and quietly, almost furtively, confess their support for his party – as if his was an underground guerrilla movement. But, as this leader recounted, such executives, with few exceptions, did not translate moral support into cash for the party’s ‘elections war chest’. Many did, however, make contributions to the ruling party’s election campaign.

Why would companies do this? On one level it is common for companies to make donations to political parties. Some even donate to a number of parties according to set formulas they use – often in proportion to parties existing strength in parliament.

It is also true to say that many companies have close ties to political parties, particularly ruling parties. Political parties, particularly ruling parties in authoritarian and semi-authoritarian states like China and Singapore, often have large financial investments and party members sit on the boards of companies partly or wholly owned by the party. In other places, having strong political connections to ruling parties helps some move up the corporate ladder. Ruling parties like the ANC have often created legislation and policy that benefits its supporters’ advancement in the corporate world. This has put party loyalists in strong positions in many companies – who may then influence their companies’ election contributions policy.

All of this, strictly speaking, is legal. Corporations can sponsor whomsoever they wish, so long as they do not explicitly say they are providing ‘cash for benefits’.  Smart corporations can even put together a clear policy explaining how and why they fund parties to promote democracy as an act of ‘corporate social responsibility’ for the good of society.  Individuals in any walk of life may contribute to whatever party they choose.

Where worries me is that companies may be contributing funds to parties not because they believe in them but out of a sense of fear – fear of loss of preferment. One gets a sense that many corporate party funding decisions are based on the rationale of “They’ll win. We need to be seen to back the winners”, with the hidden agenda “We better not be seen to rock the boat. Otherwise they’ll cut us out of the plum deals.”  In short, to use a nice Catholic term, one is not following one’s conscience.

Democratic politics is all about rocking boats without having to use violence. Even the best parties, for their own good and ours, sometimes need to get rocked out of office. By disproportionate donations to dominant parties campaigns corporations may be aiding parties to stay in power who are, to use a shopping metaphor, ‘past their sell-by date’, no longer serving the common good but their own interests.

It would be interesting to see the extent to which corporate funding of the ANC’s election campaigns mirror this view.  Naturally no corporation will ever come out and admit this.