The financing of political parties is a critical element of democratic systems as it ensures parties can effectively participate in elections, mobilize voters, and articulate their policy agendas. However, the process of financing political parties and the utilization of such funds is potentially marred with corrupt allegations especially in situations of undisclosed sources. Notably, not all political party members know the sources and how much their political parties receive and utilize, entailing the depth of weak intra party governance systems. At the same time, there are strong concerns over the power that funders derive from financing political parties, and the ways in which they influence elections.
In recent months, the US has captured the world’s attention for the role of super Political Action Committees (PACs) and Elon Musk’s role in the November 2024 American elections. Musk reportedly made significant financial contributions to pro-Trump super PACs, publicly endorsed Trump, and used his platform, X (formerly Twitter), to amplify campaign messaging. Following the elections, Musk was appointed as co-chair of the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tasked with streamlining federal operations by reducing wasteful spending, eliminating unnecessary regulations, and restructuring agencies, a role that underscores his growing influence on the political landscape.[1]
As we look at our country, we should be more concerned! The lack of regulation on political party and campaign financing means that virtually anyone could be funding our politicians. This leaves us wondering on who really funds Zambian politics and what interest they serve.
The recently published study by Transparency International Zambia dubbed ‘Elections and Money’ sheds some light on the dynamics and factors influencing political party and campaign financing in Zambia. Through empirical research involving over half of all Members of Parliament (MPs) in the country, the report shows, among other things, that:
- the average cost of winning an election in Zambia is at K3.8 million.
- campaign spending is not equal across categories: men spend more than women, adults spend more than youths, richer candidates spend more than lower-income ones, urban candidates spend more than candidates from rural constituencies, ruling party candidates spend more than opposition candidates.
- Candidates who can afford to spend more money on campaigns reap the benefits of increased spending including improved visibility.
- some of the top cost drivers of campaigning in Zambia are considered illicit under the law, particularly under the Electoral Process Act No. 35 of 2016, which explicitly defines the offering of money or gifts to voters as an electoral offence.
Crucially, the study reveals that little information is available concerning the critical question of who funds political parties, particularly identifying the major contributors, and how much political aspirants earn from their salaries compared to the significant amounts spent during campaigns, as evidenced by the extensive campaign materials observed.
- Which ordinary Zambian citizen can realistically afford such campaign spending without the help of a generous funder?
- What mechanisms do we have in place to prevent private interests from funding candidates with the expectation of illicit favours in return?
Unfortunately, so far, the answers are very few.
In such a context, political parties often resort to:
- Opaque Donations: Wealthy individuals, businesses, or foreign entities provide large sums of money in exchange for political favours, such as lucrative government contracts, licences or favourable policy influence once the party assumes power. Creating a cycle of dependency where political parties prioritize the interests of financiers over those of ordinary citizens, undermining equitable governance.
- Misuse of Public Resources: Incumbent parties may misuse state resources, including vehicles, media, and finances, for campaign purposes. The recent Kawambwa by-elections is an example of how government officials misuse state resources and social protection initiatives for their political gains. TI-Z observed reports of electoral malpractices such as vote buying and the use of government programs to induce voters. This practice gives incumbents an undue advantage while draining public resources meant for developmental programs.
- Unregulated Contributions: The absence of stringent campaign financing laws allows political parties to accept undisclosed contributions, creating a lack of accountability and oversight. This further leads to state capture as in most cases, deals are negotiated to fund campaigns at the gain of government contracts, licenses, or favourable regulatory decisions once the party assumes power. These practices create asymmetric relationships of dependence, originating a cycle of dependency where political parties prioritize the interests of financiers over those of ordinary citizens, undermining equitable governance.
The opaqueness of party financing makes it a potential breeding room for corruption and public mistrust. The exchange of these types of favours is nothing more than a ‘legalized bribe’ or an illegal alternative method of eliciting a benevolent response from a power holder. [2]
Needless to say, corruption negatively affects our election. It leads to:
- Unequal Electoral Playing Field: Corruption in political campaign financing fosters unequal competition, where wealthier parties dominate the political landscape. The recent occurrence is the 2024 Kawambwa parliamentary by– election where several incidences of vote buying through the provision of food items, cash, transport services among others were recorded. Such occurrences undermine smaller parties that lack similar resources. This further perpetuates corruption, undermines fair political competition, and diverts resources from inclusive progress and development. This practice not only contravenes electoral laws including the Electoral Process Act No 35 of 2016, but also undermines the principle of free and fair elections.
- Policy Capture: Corruption enables private financiers to exert undue influence over political parties. After the elections, these financiers may demand favourable policies, tax exemptions, or government contracts. This can come in form of preferential treatment given to some companies, which stifles fair competition and economic growth.
- Erosion of Public Trust: When citizens perceive that political parties are beholden to corrupt financiers rather than the electorate, trust in the democratic process diminishes.
- Weak Accountability Mechanisms: The absence of a functional regulatory framework exacerbates corruption. For instance, while the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) oversees elections, it lacks the capacity and legal mandate to audit political party finances effectively. This perpetuates non-transparent and unaccountable practices. As a democratic nation striving towards a free corrupt nation, a substantive law to actualize Article 60 is supposed to be prioritized. The silence by offices raises dust on what they stand on.
The starting point to fight these tendencies is to make contributions as transparent as possible: the more the public knows about who funded what and how, the lower the risk to subjectof subjecting our democracy to private interests. This further makes it possible for citizens to participate in governance activities through holding officials accountable.
The 2016 amended constitution provides provisions for both state funding of parties, declaration of funding, and a campaign spending cap. However, none of these provisions have been in effect since then. The Political Parties Bill, intended to implement the Constitution’s campaign regulation, has still not been enacted. As a result, political parties in Zambia remain unregulated in terms of campaign financing. While they rely on a mix of public and private funding, public funding is minimal or inexistent, forcing parties to depend heavily on private contributions.
Zambia needs to adopt robust reforms, including campaign finance laws mandating disclosure of funding sources and expenditures, public financing mechanisms to reduce reliance on private donors, and civic education to encourage public scrutiny. And 97.5% of the MPs we interviewed agree with us: this is the time to act!
[1] Schouten, F., Wright, D., and Matthews, A.L. (06/12/2004). Musk spent more than a quarter-billion dollars to elect Trump, including funding a mysterious super PAC, new filings show. CNN. Retrieved online on 17/01/2025, from: Musk spent at least a quarter-billion dollars to help elect Donald Trump, new filings show | CNN Politics
[2]Friedrishcs, D. (2004). Trusted Criminals. White Collar Crime in Contemporary Society. Belomnt, CA.: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Well done Tiz