First, a quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “It is better to receive one rupee from a thousand people than to have a thousand rupee from one person.” This could be a guiding principle for financing political parties. However, CPN-UML honchos seem to be reading the quotation in a reverse order. They have found it more convenient to receive billions of rupees from one person. Normally, news on philanthropy will give priority to the giver (supply driven), not the receiver of donation. Here again, CPN-UML has broken the tradition. It is the party that is in the news, not the business person donating billions. In fact, he was obscured, kept as an anonymous UML sympathizer.
The Controversy
PM Mr K. P. Oli’s decision to accept donations from Mr Min Bahadur Gurung, owner of Bhatbhateni SuperMarket chain, has become controversial. The party’s decision is under strong critique, not only from the leaders within and outside the party, even the Supreme Court has issued an interim-order against the decision. We do have cases of political parties receiving generous amounts of donations from their members and supporters, however, they were never dragged into controversy as with CPN-UML’s decision to accept donations.
Triggering Factors
Prez Paudel condoles death of 39th US president Jimmy Carter
Several factors have triggered the debate. First, as mentioned above, the news was closely guarded, the donor was kept anonymous till the last hour PM Oli laid the foundation stone at the construction site. Even UML top honchos had no idea about the donor's identity.
Second, the sheer size of the donation is mind boggling. The value of the money runs into billions of rupees. Donating more than ten ropanis of land inside the capital city of Kathmandu is not a joke. And you have to add the cost of constructing a palatial party HQ. Third, as an insult to the injury, the news of UML receiving a mega donation came at a time when many families were being displaced by heavy monsoon rains. In an hour of national crisis, UML is supposed to be giving rather than receiving. Fourth, when huge donations come from a single businessman, that too with pending cases in the court, there are reasons to doubt the motive. No one will donate big without strings attached or some vested interests. The issue provided fuel to the parties in opposition, determined to pull the government down. In fact, the decision is a blot on the government's zero tolerance against corruption and good governance agenda.
Diffusing strategy
UML honchos may seek to diffuse or suppress the issue by giving reasons like “total transparency”, absence of quid pro quo, from a long-time UML sympathizer, practical needs of the party or even Lamichhane-type logic: “why just me, not others?”. The issue has opened up debates on several fronts: our political party financing system, mandatory corporate social responsibility (CSR), and conflict of interest clause in the anti-corruption drive.
So far, our political party financing is preoccupied with campaign or electoral financing. Compared to CPN-UML receiving huge donations in one go, or mandatory requirement to donate above Rs 25,000 and above through bank accounts looks like a farcical joke. There is now a need to define a business-politics interface, that is, where the business ends and politics begin or vice versa. This is crucial in a society where business becomes politics and politics becomes business. I need a bit of explanation here. Business is all about creating wealth, becoming rich and politics is all about gaining and consolidating power. When rich people become powerful and powerful people become rich, and made possible by corruption, we end up with a present-day anomalous society.
Pure philanthropy
UML honchos may argue that there are no reciprocal interests, and the donation has nothing to do with CSR. Though CSR concepts are rooted into philanthropic activities, the case at hand is, definitely, not a CSR exercise. It is a case of pure philanthropy. If this is so, how is the court going to decide? Is it possible for the judiciary to intervene into a private decision if there are no public interests? For UML as a political party, do the means (donations) determine the ends (party HQ) or the ends determine the means? There must be a code inside the party. If there are none, it is time to write one.
