The first-ever BRIDGE workshop on Political Finance took place in Lahore, Pakistan on September 2010. This module, a new addition to the list of modules offered by BRIDGE under the second version of the program, looks at how money affects the political process and what countries can do to mitigate its negative effects. BRIDGE (Bridging Resources in Democracy, Governance and Elections) is a comprehensive professional development course designed by and for election administrators to better understand the electoral process. The participants of this groundbreaking workshop included Deputy Election Commissioners and Assistant Election Commissioners of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) from all around the country.

As with all other units of BRIDGE, the political finance module allowed the participants to engage in debate about the issues being presented. In this case, the main topics were the different funding mechanisms for political parties and candidates, campaign expenditure, legislation dealing with political finance in Pakistan and campaign contributions from foreign donors.  The debates centered on how these electoral practices would work in Pakistan.

In the case of public funding, while some believed that the use of such a mechanism would introduce more accountability in Pakistan, the majority felt that in the context of the current political culture, effective implementation mechanisms would have to be put in place for the system to work. Otherwise, the party in power could use direct public funding in an unfair manner by using the funds to their benefit while ensuring opponents did not receive their fair share.

The participants expressed concerns that public funding would not provide any leverage to new and weaker parties since the formula that generally applies for public funding is usually based on party performance in the past elections. The BRIDGE participants felt that in Pakistan, giving political parties a share of the funds based on their number of seats would institutionalize the difference between bigger and smaller parties. Thus the argument generally propounded by the advocates of direct public funding for providing opportunities to marginalized groups/parties was considered irrelevant by the participants .  Most felt that it would change nothing as public funding would maintain the relative difference between the parties.

When it came to campaign expenditure, the groups generally agreed that it is important to have an expenditure ceiling in place, as well legal instruments to deal with possible violations. The participants pointed out that in Pakistan the current legislation provides ample safeguards against surpassing the ceiling, but, because of the lack of stronger implementation mechanisms, widespread violations occur.

Currently in Pakistan the ceiling of campaign expenditure for a National Assembly and Provincial Assembly seat is Rs. 15 million ($175,000 USD) and Rs. 10 million ($117,000 USD), respectively. The BRIDGE participants felt that this amount is too small for parties to follow the regulation faithfully. The consensus was that if the ceiling is not realistic it is bound to be violated; politicians will find ways to work around it. One of the groups participating in the workshop proposed that the ceiling be raised to Rs. 30 million for a National Assembly seat and Rs. 20 million for a Provincial Assembly seat.

Additionally, the participants discussed the fact that political parties provide statements of their assets and liabilities on a yearly basis but the ECP does not analyze this information – it only receives it. This information is not even verified with the concerned financial institutions to establish its authenticity. There is no effective system to guard against illegal contributions by the supporters of a political party or a candidate, and this has the potential to pollute the system.

Effective use of “disclosure” and ensuring a level playing field could provide a greater degree of transparency in the affairs of political parties and individuals elected to the assemblies. Pakistan’s current system provides for disclosure of assets and liabilities by parliamentarians and members of the provincial assemblies.  It is, however, a weak arrangement with too little accountability in terms of false declarations. The ECP receives these declarations which are then published in the official Gazette, but, again, they are not analyzed, simply published.

The BRIDGE participants considered foreign funding of Pakistani political parties and or campaigns to be unacceptable as it could result in interference in the internal matters of the country and could also impinge on the sovereignty of the state.

The concept of co-opted politicians was also addressed. The vast majority agreed that it could negatively influence the political system of a country. Business interests could connive with politicians, who in turn would safeguard their interests. This could happen in terms of legislation or policies benefitting those business interests who contributed towards the election campaign of the party or candidate.

Political finance is a complex subject, but a good first step was taken in Pakistan when IFES and the ECP began to debate these topics. The dialogue will continue in early November in the form of a national workshop on this issue. The workshop will bring together major political parties and civil society organizations.