Foreign funding by India; illegal shuttling of party finances; and deception. Opposition calls led by PML-N are now demanding daily hearings in a foreign funding case implicatingPTI, filed by Akbar Babar – a former member of the ruling party. Babar’s claim: offshore companies were used by the ruling party to funnel illicit funds of $3 million through illegal ‘hundi channels’. In one hearing, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) rejected an application by PTI to ‘maintain secrecy’ in the proceedings. Though a final decision remains, the recent events cut into novel territory for Pakistan’s political landscape; campaign finance is gaining traction, at last.
A year ago,the EU’s Observation Mission for the 2018 General Elections observed that the lack of transparency in Pakistan’s laws on campaign finance did not ensure a level playing field for parties.A special report by Dawn put the financial cost of the 2018 elections at roughly Rs. 440 billion, or $4 billion (at the prevailing exchange rate). Only ten percent, however, is verifiably documented. It remains virtually impossible to quantify the remaining Rs. 400 billion of political finance spent by parties and their candidates.
An absence of transparency in political finance delegitimizes democratic process. What happens when political parties and candidates are free to raise campaign finance absent any regulation? The answer is a race-to-the-top. Parties and candidates contest to raise exorbitant amounts of finance.Exercising financial muscle means a better shot.
Vote-buying is one extreme example of money infecting politics. It is a century old practice collecting dust in the manuscripts of Western legal thought and political theory. For Pakistan, it continues to mar the electoral process. In the 2018 elections, there were several reports of ‘fixed rates’ for purchasing votes in Mardan, Swabi and other districts of Punjab. Candidates distributing essential commodities such as wheat, rice, or ghee in exchange for votes is another common occurrence.
While money in politics mayguarantee results, it comes at a cost. Who pays? Of course – the public. Candidates raising funds through financiers usually enter intoquid pro quo arrangements. Robert Heinlein could not have been more apt when he said “there’s no such thing as a free lunch”.Political investors become the primary concern of policy-makers, once elected. Naturally so, for it is their ‘contributions’ that enable results.Influence-buying, as I call it,disengages citizens from the political process. Thecontributors’ interests are now at the heart of law-making.
It is impossible to track cash donations in Pakistan’s informal economy, which includes over 100 million unbanked people – as Karandaz estimates
Regardless of motive, the opposition calls have a point. The ruling party’s wilful failure to justify allegations of illicit funding raises pressing concern. Why is there a lack of transparency and an urge for secrecy? Prime Minister Khan must tread warily for his ‘waves of anti-corruption’ seem to have left behind a trail of foam on the sand.
Would you vote for the ruling party if it was found to have illegally raised financing from foreign sources? In a system that functions, campaign finance would provide the opportunity of making an informed choice when exercising the right of suffrage. Consider Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP):a far-right Islamist political entity that contested the 2018 elections. Last year the Supreme Court observed TLP did not provide the ECP with details of its campaign expenditure. The suspected sources of its party finances range from militant-fundamentalist groups to foreign adversaries: a fact the 4.5 million voters of TLP – and we all – remain oblivious to.
In 2017, the National Assembly enacted the legislation with a focus to improve financial transparency. Reporting requirements for individual donors contributing more than $1000 to political parties were made obligatory; spending limits prohibitedcandidates contesting for the National Assembly from expending more than Rs. 4 million during campaigns.
At best, these enactmentswere eyewash. Apart from a lack of enforcement, they represented a half-hearted attempt to regulate candidates. Consider donation limits of $1000 set by the Elections Act. There is no effective system for ensuring this provision is complied with.It is impossible to track cash donations in Pakistan’s informal economy, which includes over 100 million unbanked people – as Karandazestimates.
Moreover, uniform spending limits for candidates contesting federal elections are unrealistic. A practical formula for spending limits needs to be re-worked in proportion to each constituency’s demographics.A constituency with a larger geographical area, or population cannot have the same spending limit as that of a smaller one. Bannu, for example, is a constituency with over 1 million voters, while NA-47 in FATA has a population four times less i.e., 250,000. It is, therefore, impractical to impose identical spending limits when there are disparate demographics.
Of even more importance are in-kind contributions, which the Elections Act contains no reference to.These are non-monetary contributions offered free of cost to candidates, or at an amount lowerthan the prevailing market price. Consider the example of Ali Zaidi, a Federal Minister, who is reported to have campaigned out of the office of one of Pakistan’s biggest construction firms. Having ‘friends’ provide office spaces, vehicles for election rallies, or providing transportation to voters on elections days are all soft contributions, or favours that need to be factored in spending limits for candidates.
Though the Elections Act has made headway, its strife for political transparency requires re-imagination. Before searching for answers, we must endeavour to ask the right questions.Our system can no longer remain oblivious to the mischiefs that infect our political process.
The writer is a lawyer, practices in Lahore, and is currently attending New York University for a post-graduate in Law