According to the report, 53.4 percent of Nepali citizens feel the level of corruption has increased in the last three years. Around 2.2 percent of Nepali households paid the highest average amount of bribe, exceeding Rs 3,500 annually. Another 18.8 percent reported paying bribes ranging between Rs 2,485 to Rs 3,429. Forty percent of respondents reported bribing public officials in past one year, mostly to speed up administrative processes on essential services and entitlements. This hints at the scale of prevalence and acceptance of ´speed money´ in public service delivery system.
Public rating of political parties and the parliament as the most corrupt institutions is a proof that corruption is intrinsic to Nepali political system. There are three main reasons for this. First, income and expenditure of political parties are closely-guarded secret; second, party funding and campaign finances are opaque; and third, political parties are increasingly inclined to tolerate graft and rent-seeking.
In what must have come as a jolt to the political parties, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has directed the government to immediately scrap nearly 4,000 all-party mechanisms across the country. These local mechanisms were put in place to allocate and mobilize development funds through the headless local bodies. But these bodies were neither accountable nor transparent.
One of the endemic malaises of these all-party mechanisms was ´consensual corruption´. As political influence was the benchmark for allocation of grants, unelected political mechanisms failed their accountability and transparency tests. The User´s Committees (UCs) fared no better. The UCs were conceptualized as mechanisms to encourage local community and beneficiaries to participate in decision making and take ownership of development works. In most cases, UCs´ formation process was always questionable; now even their accountability is under the scanner.
Political parties take every opportunity to induct their men into committees. The goal is to claim a share of the spoils in the multi-million donor-funded Local Governance and Community Development Program (LGCDP) funds. Besides the LGCDP grants, approximately Rs 45 billion is being pumped into local development every year. The intended beneficiaries have little decision-making power in the UCs as excessive ´politicization´ has rendered these committees ´power wielding spaces´. Some UCs are even sub-contracting development works and gobbling up huge amounts in commissions. It’s a relief that CIAA directive has at least set in motion the process for the long-overdue local elections.
POOR TRANSPARENCY
Political parties´ income and expense records are still considered a no-go-area. The unhindered flow of money into politics from criminal and other mysterious sources has often led to unethical practices such as buying of lawmakers and floor-crossing in the parliament to topple the government. The Election Commission data show that 1,000-plus candidates (out of 6,400 contestants in CA elections) are yet to submit the details of their electoral expenses. According to CA Elections Rules, candidates have to furnish details of expenses within 35 days of the polls.
Huge sums going into party coffers to finance expensive election cycles and high level of tolerance of corruption undermine the legitimacy of Nepali political parties.
Similarly, the Political Parties Act-2002 makes it obligatory for parties to submit audited financial reports within six months from the end of fiscal year. They are also obliged to disclose names of contributors donating above Rs 25,000. But the EC record reveals that 67 of the 69 registered parties are yet to submit their audit reports after the CA polls in 2008. Even big political parties are openly flouting the laws. Rules alone will not be enough without strong oversight, enforcement and monitoring mechanisms.
A degree of credibility in the political system can be restored if the electoral finance records are made public. On the other hand, unhealthy competition can destabilize the whole political system and undermine legitimacy of state institutions. Thus, it is an imperative that political parties are held to high standards of accountability and transparency.
Party financing rules operate successfully in an environment of robust institutions and strong rule of law. Legally, election candidates are obliged to disclose all sources, types and amounts of financial support, both before and after elections. Thus information on party income and expenditure must be made public on a regular basis via websites and public postings.
Opaque party funding has muddied our political and electoral systems by creating an uneven playing field. To level the field among candidates, legal instruments should be enforced to ensure all donations and other sources of party revenue are made public, so that both donors and amounts of donations are identified and made available for public and legal scrutiny.
One of the ways to achieve greater transparency is to make party politics and elections as inexpensive as possible. As election expenses are exorbitantly high, demand usually exceeds the supply of funds, thus leading to search for illegal funding. This quest in turn eases the entry of corrupt money into politics.
Experience abroad shows regulation of party funding can be effective if they are well-designed, are backed by effective sanctions, and accompanied by a parallel effort to ensure a high level of ethics and norms. This Is the reason many countries oblige political parties and election candidates to disclose their campaign and political finances periodically.
In the United Kingdom, political parties need to publish party donations quarterly but weekly disclosure is mandatory during the elections. They need to disclose all donations above $7,500 in cash (or kind) through regular updates to their websites. Setting a contribution threshold of $ 200, the US law also demands both the parties and candidates report names and address of contributors, grant size and in-kind contributions. Failure to comply leads to strict legal actions.
The US, the UK, France, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Japan, among others, have completely outlawed foreign donations and contributions, even from multinationals. Some have even banned donations from public and private sector companies, such as France since 1995. Thus, effectiveness of any legal instrument lies in its reach: Does it cover the entire gamut of party funding and campaign finance?
Indubitably, mandatory public disclosure can be a strong deterrent to entry of corrupt and illegal money into politics, particularly during elections. Robust public disclosure regime, therefore, must address four fundamental concerns: Who gives money? How much money do they give? Where does the money go? And for what purpose?
In this regard, public disclosure laws ought to fundamentally demand three types of reporting requirements—disclosure by candidates of income or expenditure details, disclosure by political parties of income and expenditure details, and disclosure by candidates and political parties of the names of donors.
No matter how flawless a country´s electoral system, however competitive its political parties, however active its civil society and however responsible its media, influx of illegal money, if it continues unchecked in politics, will continue to have severe repercussions on the quality of politics and governance in Nepal. Drawing up a legal boundary between money and politics is thus an imperative for a transparent, accountable and value-based political system.
The writer is Deputy Director of Good Governance Program at Pro Public. Views expressed in this article are personal
pbhattarai2001@gmail.com
Related story
19th Sawa Lakh Rot Festival begins in Gorkha
