SHOULD POLITICAL PARTIES BE FUNDED?

In the evolution of Ghanaian multi-party democracy, political party funding has always been an emotive issue. The countrys political history is rich with stories of individuals who virtually took

upon themselves the issue of funding their political parties. Years after colonialism, political parties in the country have undergone the kind of evolution that, although punctuated by brutal and disruptive military regimes, has positioned them to play more meaningful roles in the governance of their people. The Ghanaian thirst for very modernised political parties is great. Increasingly, the posture of political parties is drifting to one of responsible public organisations which operate all year as viable entities influencing government policies and not just vents for politicians to unleash campaign slogans on helpless electorate in the election year. Indeed, Ghana has been praised across the continent for having quite elaborate laws with regard to the funding of political parties. I am emphatically against the notion that political parties should be funded by the state. State funding of political parties is not luxurious and neither would political parties die when the state does not provide any sort of funding. However, the merit which the parties and the nation would derive would far be better off if they are not supported by the state. I think now if there is any institution that we need to support financially then it is our educational and research institutions in the country. We need to support them because their operations are not attracted by sympathizers to donate to them. But for political parties in the country they have been getting funds from supporters and well wishers in the country.

There are many reasons why I dissent from the usage of tax payers money to be used to support political parties. The argument against this system of funding of political parties is that if parties can rely on state funding, they will renege on their attempt to bond with civil society and their well wishers. In that case, the whole democratization exercise is often defeated. This statement simply put means that such state funded parties will be divorced from civil society and the electorate. Also parties will be less interested in representing and fulfilling the needs of the citizenry and there will be a reduced passion for the opposition parties to actively be involved in the democratic process.

Moreover when the state funds political parties, it will decrease the internal democratic processes in the parties. When the political parties have sufficient funds from the state coffers, they would rather buy services they need for the survival and smooth operations of the party other than to seek the services from their own members, which hitherto would have increased a sense of belongingness towards the party and what it stands for.

Furthermore, party-entrepreneurs will spring up from all places, and then the whole democratization process becomes an open market for all sorts of party entrepreneurs to join the business. It would surprise you that during one election we can have as many as 30 political parties contesting for presidential and parliamentary elections. When this happens every election would run into round off since no one can get the required 50 percent plus one vote. Another reason about the argument is that since not all parties in the early stages of a democratic state have survived, funding all parties in the early democratization process will be invariably increase the unneeded lifespan of parties that have no business in the democracy and that are of no significant meaning to the electorate. In short, the life of all the new parties will be prolonged at a cost to everyone and at a profit to none. For instance, in the 1992 general elections one of the parties that contested in the election was the National Independence Party led by Kwabena Darko. This party since that election has gone into extinction. If this party had received state funding it would have had a prolonged life span on the political scene whiles this party no significant meaning to the electorate.

Nevertheless state-funding is not just unproductive, but counterproductive and unbeneficial to the democratic process. The arguments that ,state funding curbs corruption doesnt hold. If political parties are still going to be free to raise private funds, then there still will be party contributors who will still demand for contracts whether or not there was state funding available. They must recoup their investment either way. The other argument that political parties are an integral part of the democracy so they should be funded by the state also falls short. The Media, NGOs, civil society and even businesses and corporations are also parts of the democratic process. Should they all be state-funded?

Also members of the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislature are all employees of the state. Workers at political party offices and their field officers are not state employees, so why should the state pay their salaries? If state fund parties, what happens to independent candidates? Are they not part of the process? If they are also funded, then it really becomes a whole market as was first stated. Again, if it is to offer a level playing field against the incumbency, then the state is pre-concluding that the incumbency should have access to the state apparatus and resources to campaign. This is simply not tackling the root problem of exploitation by incumbency. Lets bear in mind that no matter how much funds the state gives to political parties, if the incumbent is allowed to be corrupt, they will embezzle more just to have a financial edge over the competition. I conclude that funding of political parties would lead to dissipation of national resources, given the flamboyant posture of some political parties.