POLITICS - OPINION - LIMITATIONS OF POLITICAL MONEY

LIMITATIONS OF POLITICAL MONEY By Ananiya Alick Ponje In both authoritarian and democratic regimes, politicians need money to sustain their activities be it in campaigns for elections or the selling of their ideologies and policies to the electorate. It is no denying fact that money is central in politics as much as it is to our daily lives. In fact, without money, political parties would not operate because there would be no way they would easily convey their messages to the voters. However, one significant thing about political money that should be born in mind is that it has its own limitations as well. In Malawi there are political parties that have at their helms ‘open-handed’ individuals who spend substantial amounts of money on anything if it means buying the support of voters. One thing however, remains underlying: no one knows whether everyone can be enticed by money so that they may finally vote for the ‘money-giver’. Yes, people may receive the money or any other form of handout aimed at buying their support but the choice of every voter is a secret thing that is entirely known only by the voter himself, unless if the voting process is done in a way that supporters of a candidate stand behind him/her like in the case of primary elections. However, even in such types of elections, there is no evidence that ‘supporters’ of a particular candidate are really their supporters. In fact, a certain individual during the botched-up DPP primary elections in Likangala Constituency confided in me that he would vote for candidate A not because he supported him, but because he had ‘patronized’ one of the feasts that the candidate had prepared to woo the support of voters. This informed me that even if the candidate made it, the ‘untrustworthy’ voter would still vote for someone else in the ‘main’ elections. It is very easy to find examples of candidates who have spent substantial amounts of money on election campaigns aimed at buying the support of the electorate only to fail miserably at the polls. Some people have tried their best to mobilize voters in different ways so that they may support their colleagues but their efforts have come up against brick walls. An example of an incident where a candidate used so much money to plug his views in different ways to buy the support of voters is the referendum that was held in a once glorious Zimbabwe in February 2000. The aim of the referendum was to seek a majority of votes that would enable president Robert Mugabe have his proposed new constitution implemented. Mugabe paid for many major media so that they published stories about the ‘positive’ parts of the provisions in the new constitution. He used money in different ways to lobby on all issues which he deemed positive in the ‘reformed’ constitution but failed miserably at the end. He was shamefully defeated by a scantly organized opposition which had not even done enough awareness on the same. Here is where it becomes clear that there are voters who do not just vote for the love of the candidate but for their own future as well. The new constitution was to give President Mugabe too much power and the voters new that he would in turn oppress them severely if he attained his wishes of having the constitution amended. It is very hard to manipulate the underlying choices of the electorate with money. It appears politics where money rules is becoming extinct, or may be it was never there. Money does not necessarily buy votes, but perhaps it helps in maintaining the candidates’ relationships with their potential voters through frequent contacts so that the voters do not lose interest in the candidate because of too much ‘absence’. Although money is undoubtedly central in politics, it is not the only important resource. Other political motivations and forces can be used as tools of winning the favour of voters. The policies of the candidate, the already instituted development projects and academic credentials are some of these motivations that may help a candidate win the favour of voters. Another classic example which vindicates the argument that money is not the only driving force towards political prosperity is the case of the British billionaire businessman Sir James Goldsmith who paid about 2 million pounds in the general election of 1999 to present a line-up of candidates opposed to Britain’s integration into the European Union. This was an amount that could uplift the development projects of poor countries like Malawi, yet his whole wealth was as though it had not been ‘tampered with’. He was so rich that the money that he plugged to sell his views meant very little to him. Nevertheless, his Referendum Party proved a very scanty force in Britain’s politics. He never succeeded. Of course, someone may argue that that was politics in Britain, but it is becoming the case in Malawi. An unpublished research on the role of political money in Malawi has revealed that people in Malawi are no longer ‘hide bound’ and they are more concerned about their future than their present, hence their desires to choose a leader who is going to uplift their lives even if the leader is not rich. As aspiring legislators and presidential candidates have armoured themselves for the campaign into victory, they need to put into consideration the fact that much as money is important in politics, it has its limitations as well. There are other political motivations and forces which the electorate may be willing to anticipate. Money is going to make election campaigns possible, but not automatically successful. That is why all aspiring candidates need to put forward other strategies for winning the support of voters other than money alone because it may just frustrate them. People now look for something beyond wealth. They look for a leader who is going to provide for them continued sustainable ways of living, not necessarily a leader who is going to give them handouts in the form of money during election campaigns. But they are going to receive the money anyway and they are going to sing songs of allegiance to the money giver, yet their choices remain concealed. However, for political parties and individual who are vying for different political positions and have sound ideologies and policies that they are bold enough will win the confidence of voters and want to enhance them with political funding, let them do so. It might be just a way of doubling chances. Election campaigns prepare a journey towards reality, and money will not monopolise other advancements of campaigns.