A refusal by government to allow state funding of political parties is based on a selfish, well-calculated recognition that, as a ruling party, the BDP will continue to receive a lion’s share of donations from business.
An absence of political party funding has opened a whole new underworld where donors and big businesses are literally holding the entire country at ransom.
An acquaintance of mine tells of how Ian Khama was angry when, two years ago, Kgalagadi Breweries announced that they would make financial donations to all parties based on performance as at the last General Elections.
The KBL decision was an investment in democracy but coming a few months after the introduction of the alcohol levy, Khama felt exonerated that the alcohol industry in Botswana was a money spinner.
Otherwise why would KBL donate to political parties, especially opposition if indeed the company was as cash-strapped as they said they were as a result of the levy!
The President was annoyed not so much because he did not want money for his BDP, but rather at the fact that the formula as suggested by the brewer sought to give opposition parties a leg up. In English his behavior is called opportunism.
BDP has grown used to monopolizing all donations from the private sector.
And they take unkindly to any suggestions that other political parties should also benefit, however little.
Political donors in Botswana are increasingly aware of their sway over politicians.
They have politicians, including ministers, literally in their pockets.
The situation would not be as bad if there was a kind of state funding of political parties in place.
Well aware of the immense power that their money has over politicians, donors, who for the most part are business people, are busy at cutting illegal deals for themselves and their businesses.
And for goodness sake, the president’s housing appeal is not exempt from this chicanery.
As the Americans would put it, access is power. And the president’s housing appeal is giving political donors unrestricted access to the president.
Donors are using their wealth to open doors of opportunity for themselves.
They are literally corrupting not just our leaders but the system as well.
An idea that a businessman gives out their money because they believe the cause to be worthwhile has been proved to be a fallacy the world over. Business people make donations out of self-interest.
They do so because they want to put themselves on a higher pedestal when they ask for favours in the future.
To insist that by not funding political parties the state is somehow saving public finance is lunacy.
It is an illusion we can no longer defend.
The amount of public money eventually lost in corrupt deals to BDP financiers is much bigger than would be the case if there was a clean system in place to proportionately finance parties based on their size and performance as at the last election.
Because they have tasted power without accountability, it is never going to be easy to get corruption out of our politics.
Even harder will be attempts to control businesses going forward.
All our politicians are in the pockets of big money.
Whatever decision they make our political leaders are careful not to offend their true masters, who are the people financing the parties.
Even in the most mundane of decisions, a way has to be found to make sure financiers are happy so that cash continues to flow nonstop.
No wonder the national awards and honours have begun to susceptibly tilt in favour of those known to dole out significant cash to the ruling party. It is not in any way a coincidence.
Botswana has taken a lot of credit ÔÇô by other accounts too much ÔÇô of being a low corruption territory.
But unless they are cut to size, including by putting caps and curbs on how much they can donate, political party financiers will continue to grow in influence beyond their current status which by any account puts them among the biggest threats to the oasis of honesty we have been made to believe we are as a nation.
The fact that politicians go out of their way to solicit donations is a definitive lesson that they need money to run their parties. It also is a definitive warning of just how vulnerable they are because, along the way, they too can be bought by those with more money to spread around in search of favours, influence and access.
It is time we started an honest national debate on the advantages and disadvantages of funding our political parties using public finance. Otherwise we will wake up one day to find that all our politicians (and this includes the state president) have been sold to the highest bidder.
