How funding of poll campaigns entrenches runaway corruption

Campaign trail utterances have brought to the fore an important issue that we are yet to confront; the role of money in influencing electoral outcomes. Elections are no doubt becoming more and more expensive and candidates have to employ all means to raise the much-needed money to fund their campaigns. The contributions of individuals and the private sector have attained prominence in funding campaigns.

The challenge however is when such contributions are at a level that could influence not just the outcome of the elections, but the choices of those funded after assuming office. This concern is not just legitimate, but there are historical reasons for them considering that a sizeable chunk of the money stolen from the public ends up buying political support and more opportunities for further corrupt activities.

Scandals

A common characteristic of scandals associated with elections is that they are and may never be resolved. The reason for this is that these scandals are conceptualized from the highest levels of political leadership. What then manifests as the inability of public institutions to hold suspects to account is in fact a facade.

It should be remembered that governments, put in place through elections, determine the development priorities of the nation and how money is going to be spent. The executive will develop priorities and allocate budgets that are then approved by the legislature, which has overall oversight responsibility to ensure resources are well utilized. Capturing the executive and the legislature or sections of them is the ultimate prize for anyone interested in doing business with the biggest business actor in the land.

How does this work in practice? Corruption cartels first identify a political formation or formations with a likelihood of success. Sometimes they will spread the risk and fund different formations. They then offer their financial support during the campaigns. Their support is welcome as any campaign can do with extra cash. This is aided by the fact that there is no effective law in place for candidates or political parties to disclose the identity of their financiers and the amounts they contribute, thus the transactions hardly come to light.

The Campaign Financing Act has no application to the general elections this year after Parliament suspended it. The Political Parties Act could be helpful in this regard but it is fairly weak. This support is however conditional – premised on undertakings to isolate and award certain public projects to the financier or identified beneficiaries, and in some cases pliant appointments to certain positions in public service that serve to extend influence and protect vested interests.The practical import of this is that some projects to be implemented are already identified and the contractors determined long before the procurement process commences. These projects are tainted irrespective of the public benefit to be derived from them. Secondly, the cost of execution will be exaggerated, meaning the public pays way beyond the market value.

Compromised workmanship

The third is the risk that the quality of workmanship is compromised in a bid to maximise returns to be used to pay 'political debts'. Lastly, accountability is compromised, caught up in an imbroglio of conflict of interest that everyone involved tries to make sure is never unravelled through any judicial or administrative process.The question is, how can we minimise the impact of  illicit money on our politics and preserve the integrity of our public and private sector processes? The first and perhaps the most important principle is disclosure. An enforced disclosure of the identities and the amounts or value of support to any campaign should be mandatory.

This helps in identifying potential conflicts of interest that may arise. Secondly, the amount that any individual or entity can contribute needs to be capped. This is perhaps the time to throw a challenge at both Jubilee and NASA. If any of them wants to claim the moral high ground, they should publish details of all or major contributors to their campaigns and details of how that money was spent.

Mr Kimeu is the Executive Director, Transparency International– Kenya. [e-mail]