Transparency in campaign finance is good?
I tend to believe that more transparency in campaign finance is better than less. If people are buying politicians, I want to know who they are and how much they are giving. Strangely, the case for more transparency is not quite as clear in partial democracies, especially those with weak rule of law. The National Democratic Institute has just released a report on Tanzania that explains why this is the case.
Like many partial democracies, Tanzania has a hegemonic party, the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), that is unlikely to lose an election anytime soon. The CCM recently passed a campaign finance law requiring donors to identify themselves and how much they are donating. On the surface this seems like a good idea, so why do opposition parties not like the law? They believe that the law is designed so that the ruling party can figure out who is donating to the opposition and/or discouraging such donations. Are these fears reasonable? I would say yes as the CCM has a habit of harassing and intimidating those who oppose them. Lesson: don’t assume that what’s good in a consolidated democracy is good in a weak one.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Sign up for our mailing list
Posts by Region
Posts by Topic
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (13)
- December 2011 (10)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (25)
- August 2011 (10)
- July 2011 (16)
- June 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (14)
- April 2011 (16)
- March 2011 (20)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (24)
- October 2010 (27)
- September 2010 (17)
- August 2010 (42)
- July 2010 (40)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (72)
- April 2010 (38)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (32)
- January 2010 (46)
- December 2009 (45)
- November 2009 (38)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (24)
- August 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (1)
Who we like
- AfPak Channel
- CIPE Blog
- Countries at the Crossroads
- Cyrus Samii
- Democracy Arsenal
- Democracy Dialogue
- Democracy Digest
- Democracy Resource Center
- EITI Blog
- ElectionGuide.org
- Fruits and Votes
- Global Voices Online
- One Blog
- Open Budgets Blog
- Open Democracy
- Policy and Power
- Progressive Realist
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Blogs
- Space for Transparency
- The Coming Prosperity
- The Democratic Piece
- The International Jurist
- The Kaufmann Governance Post
- United Nations Democracy Fund
- Zunia.org
Having worked a little bit on political finance reform for developing democracies, I’m familiar with questions about the wisdom of disclosure in different contexts. So is the PF practitioner community, it would seem.
As democracy assistance targets a wider range of countries, the importance of campaign finance disclosure becomes less clear. For instance, its place in in a post- or mid-conflict country’s hierarchy of needs is much lower than its place in a country with repeated, peaceful, and meaningful multiparty competition.
Beyond that, disclosure seems to me to be a relative democratic luxury item. Although it was on the agenda for almost a century, the United States didn’t have enforced disclosure provisions until the 1970s. Even in that country, the privacy and security issues you point to remain controversial.
I would go further than that. Disclosure is not so much a luxury that needs to wait until a country becomes more democratic, but might be a hinderance to becoming more democratic if it makes people wary of donating to opposition parties.