This week, Accra hosted a high-level regional convening on the financialisation of politics in Africa.
The three-day gathering, themed “Advancing Reform, Accountability, and Democratic Integrity,” brought together members of the diplomatic community, civil society organisations, elected and appointed officials, academics, researchers, human rights institutions, and advocacy groups.
Over the three days, participants engaged in rich discussions on the role of money in democratic politics across the region and what can be done to curb this worrying phenomenon.
The convening was a collaboration between Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), African Union Advisory Board Against Corruption (AUABC), Open Society Foundations (OSF), Transparency International (TI) and Community of Practice on Political Finance in Africa.
One moment stood out to me — and not in a reassuring way. In his opening remarks, the Executive Director of CDD-Ghana cited a study estimating the cost of contesting a parliamentary seat in Ghana at $693,000, and the cost of running for President at $100 million.
Two speakers — both veterans of Ghanaian politics who have been on the frontlines since the beginning of the Fourth Republic and have themselves contested elections — publicly disputed those figures.
Their objection was not that the numbers were inflated, but that they were grossly understated. In other words, it costs far more than CDD-Ghana estimates.
It is precisely for this reason that the convening could not have come at a better time. Here are some key takeaways from the discussions, the debates, and the collective search for solutions. Key takeaways from the high-level regional convening
First, where is the money coming from? In Ghana, there are plenty of anecdotal accounts of who the party financiers are.
However, there is no official documentation of who donates or how much they give. In essence, no one truly knows where all the money in our politics comes from.
This is dangerous, because it leaves democracies vulnerable to capture by actors whose interests are most likely parochial and self-serving, with little regard for the development of the country.
Second is the civic dimension of how countries deal with this problem.
The argument is that money in politics has two sides: a supply side, made up of candidates who offer monetary inducements to voters, and a demand side, made up of citizens who expect — and indeed demand — material things before offering their vote.
It is a classic chicken-and-egg question as to which came first.
Whatever the case, fighting this canker will require a change in the civic attitudes of citizens, so that what they demand from candidates is not money, which is temporary in nature, but policy solutions to public problems, which endure.
Third is the role of the state beyond regulatory compliance and enforcement of the rules governing party and campaign finance.
This brought up the thorny issue of state funding of political parties — an idea that attracts strong opinions both for and against.
While I support a well-designed and transparent system of public financing for political parties, the worry remains whether citizens in Ghana have the appetite for it.
Over the years, support for the idea has declined significantly, from 53 per cent (CDD-Ghana, 2005) to 26 per cent (Afrobarometer).
This lack of public support makes it challenging to float the idea.
Fourth is the role of the private sector. What do private sector actors want from Ghana’s democracy, and why do they allegedly make huge financial resources available to political parties and their candidates?
There appears to be a nexus between their donations and the expectation of a favourable government — one that rewards them when it comes, for instance, to public procurement. This distorts business, and ultimately, it distorts politics as well. To be clear, political parties do need financial resources, and the goal of the convening was not to wish that need away.
Rather, it was to find ways in which private sector actors, with their deep pockets, can support parties and their candidates transparently — without purchasing influence in return.
Fifth — and this is a question that may not lend itself to an easy answer — how much money should be enough?
Among the many suggestions aimed at strengthening the legal and regulatory framework for political financing was the placing of caps on money: how much can be raised and how much can be spent.
Finding the right balance will be very important — caps must be meaningful enough to curb excess, yet not so restrictive that they strangle parties and candidates who legitimately need financial resources to compete. Democracy is not for sale
Democracy should not represent only the interests of those with the financial muscle to bankroll political parties and candidates.
It must also represent the interests of ordinary citizens in need of policy solutions to everyday public problems.
Collectively, we must support initiatives such as this convening to ensure that our democracy works for all — and not just for those who can afford it.
The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project
