According to opendemocracy’s co-editor Guy Aitchison, the fact that today’s mainstream political parties rely more and more on wealthy individual donors, rather than mass membership for money, has thrown up, in his words, ‘age old questions’ about how parties are to be financed in the future. Aitchison bemoans the fact that trade unions and some rich individuals fund New Labour, and millionaires fund the Tories - and that these benefactors ‘hold such sway over the political process’.
Bizarrely, Aitchison attacks the mainstream political parties for being, erm… political. He argues that there has been a state of ‘near-permanent partisan warfare’ – but bare with me one moment. In my dictionary, the word partisan is defined as someone who is a ‘strong supporter of a party, or of a cause’ – this is what politics is all about, isn’t it? Why bemoan that fact?
Nevertheless, what really struck me was the lack of political vocabulary, and analysis. No matter how you dress it up, or what democrat-babble you use to describe it, if you use public money to fund political parties, what you are effectively doing is ‘nationalising’ them – and who needs nationalised political parties? Whether it’s called a ‘debit card’, ‘patriot card’, or how Aitchison likes to describe us British subjects a ‘citizen’ card, either way, this all means that ‘servants of the public’ will be miraculously transformed into bean-counting, managerial civil servants, paid for by the state.
The truth is, there is nothing wrong with political parties asking for donations, or being partisan. Without this, politics would become blander and less political than it is at the moment. Indeed, as others have rightly argued, it is fundamental to real democracy that political parties be partisan. Political issues cannot be clarified without differing visions on how to build the Good Society, and on what direction it should take.
Geoffrey Payne’s comment, the first on Aitchison’s post points out how this card would avoid giving funds to extremists parties like the BNP or Respect, but it also highlight’s how any form of state funding would completely anaesthetise politics and political debates – all this at a time when we desperately need to thrash out some hard arguments about our future.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/guy-aitchison/radical-idea-for-party-funding-reform-one-person-one-card
No, Guy doesn’t blame political parties for being political or partisan. His proposal aims at economic power turned into political power. His idea wouldn’t mean that parties depend on the state for funds, they would depend on citizens giving them their cards. Nobody would be forced to “spend” the card on a party either, you could use them for a bonfire in front of the parliament too, if you want to protest against the party system.
It’s one person one vote, even if some people here don’t like it. The card would install equality in the financial means of parties to match this principle. I like this idea.
Well, it's only me so far that has any reservations about using one penny of public funds to sponsor such a 'card' scheme. Also, I'm not too sure how exactly this card could 'install equality' by any means.
I also don't quite understand how you could fund this card scheme without using any public money. Each card we are told would amount to the value of £2 per person - but who would pay for the card?
Also, in Britain, you cannot cap individual donations, unless a law was devised in order to ban it.
We already have 'one person one vote', so not really sure what would change under this card scheme. I'm trying to see what the 'democratic' arguments are for such a scheme - thank you for your argument, but I still don't see them.
The whole idea is complete rubbish. If you want to give £2 to a political party then do it - get off your arse and write a cheque and post it off. The State should not be involved at all, and indeed it is profoundly bad for the democratic process if political parties rely on State funds to pay for their activities. Rather than reinvigorate the party (or parties) it will do exactly the opposite.
I totally agree with your sentiments here - any such scheme involving the public purse and political parties will have the opposite effect than what was intended. The truth is, many people appear to absolutely hate the fact that New Labour have an historical financial link with the trade union movement. They hate the fact that the Tories, up until the election of Tony Blair, were the natural party of government, and the British establishment, with organic links to the financial elites. Both parties have ignored their core constituencies, which has left them relying more and more on secret cash loans from rich individuals.
All the mainstream parties have been financially broke for well over five years now, hence the desperate bid to grab public funds. As you quite rightly argue owly, none of this will ignite a new, positive era of democratic politics, but will actually be a nail in the coffin of any real democracy.
What many people hate is the fact that the Labour Government gave the Unions taxpayers money for 'reform', and this money basically ended up in the Labour Party. It was a disgraceful use of public money. The Unions should have paid for their own reform, not the taxpayer.
“We already have 'one person one vote', so not really sure what would change under this card scheme.”
It would make each party directly and equally dependent to citizens for funding. I know you already have one person one vote and so have we. Tying party funds to a certain amount of money per person would match this principle.
People (and worse corporations) who can make high donations to parties will only fund parties that serve their interests, of course. This gives some parties an advantage that contradicts the principle that democratic rights are tied to persons equally, with no regard to their economic means. It’s turning economic power into political power.
Even worse, donators expect some “gratitude”. Politicians will be careful not to alienate rich donators by a policy that might make sense in the interest of the country, but that is against the interests of a donator.
Of course the funds for this card will come from the state (by taxation), but the parties wouldn’t depend on the state but on the number of citizens they can persuade to give them funds.
A law that caps donations for parties (which we indirectly have in Germany by the rules to publish donations) is necessarily more complicated, and the more complicated a law, the more loopholes you can find. The card is so simple that I can’t imagine that it will be possible to find a loophole.
'People (and worse corporations) who can make high donations to parties will only fund parties that serve their interests, of course.'
The implication here is that there is something inherently wrong with political parties serving the interests of a particular constituency - that parties should be above political interests. To me, the notion is wrongheaded because it is vital that political parties fight and serve the interests of it's constituents. It is the basis of any real democracy that political parties be partisan and stand up for competing values and social visions. Without such partisanship politics would be bland, boring and worse, bereft of any meaningful debate.
'Even worse, donators expect some “gratitude”.'
I have no problem with filthy rich people giving parties huge loans for some 'gratitude'. There is nothing wrong with making political donations. Indeed, putting your hand, in your own pocket, is the most positive commitment an individual can make to a political cause - it is the purest expression of staking a claim on the future. If political parties can no longer persuade people to do just that, then they will die, naturally. Any form of State finance (except for those who are elected of course), would only act like a life support system for organisations that are already dead, or dying.
'Of course the funds for this card will come from the state (by taxation).'
In other words, a life support system for bankrupt political parties, but by the back door.
“The implication here is that there is something inherently wrong with political parties serving the interests of a particular constituency…”
So in your view a constituency consists only of rich voters who have made large donations?
And, by the way, corporations are not allowed to vote. I suspect you deplore that.
“I have no problem with filthy rich people giving parties huge loans for some 'gratitude'.”
There is an uglier word for this sort of “gratitude”: corruption. Good to know that you have no issue with it.
"I have no problem with filthy rich people giving parties huge loans for some 'gratitude'."
So we have a new definition of democracy:
Government of the people (who failed to stump up), by the people (who have been bought and paid for), for the people (who bought and paid for them.)
Well done Courtney. It's obviously much more equitable to finance politicians through a freely operating market. Maybe we could put them on E Bay too!
I think by focusing on the word 'gratitude', you fail to see a far more important point. The point being, that donating to political parties isn't actually a problem - the problem starts when intelligent people use great effort to conjure up numerous ways to use precious public money, to prop up bankrupted political parties - parties that are bankrupted in more ways than one.
The truth is, no political party has the right to exist forever - and effectively, part nationalising parties, which would be one of the consequences of the 'democracy' or 'citizen' card, would not solve the problem of cash strapped parties. Political parties in a democracy have to go out and persuade people that they are worth giving money to. If they cannot do that, they deserve to die.
A democracy or citizen, or whatever you want to call it card would only prolong that death, and the public would be fitting the bill. That is not what I'd call 'democracy', it is more akin to welfare dependency.
“I think by focusing on the word 'gratitude', you fail to see a far more important point. The point being, that donating to political parties isn't actually a problem - the problem starts when intelligent people use great effort to conjure up numerous ways to use precious public money, to prop up bankrupted political parties - parties that are bankrupted in more ways than one.”
You are muddling two things.
Political parties are indeed politically bankrupt. I doubt that we agree on the reasons for this though. If you want to replace the influence of political parties by something else: get an idea what that can be, and campaign for it. And don’t give your card to any of them (it would be your decision, not that of the state).
I don’t see that either your or my country can do without parties all of a sudden. As long as parties are needed and play an important role in a democracy, they must have funds according to democratic rules.
Funding by unlimited donations gives the rich a disproportional influence on politics that clashes with the principle of equal voting rights of all citizens.
Additionally, this sort of funding helps corruption. I really don’t see why anybody could want to maintain the current system of party funding, unless they want to go back to feudalism.
"The truth is, no political party has the right to exist forever"
Quite right. They should only exist as long as there is support for them.
"Political parties in a democracy have to go out and persuade people that they are worth giving money to. If they cannot do that, they deserve to die."
The problem is that you are insisting that such support can only be measured by market criteria. In effect, to take liberties with Zola, you are saying that because a supermarket check-out operator has as much right to give half a million quid to a political party as the owner of City hedge fund then there is no problem: The system is therefore fair and democratic.
The card scheme, as long as it was combined with a cap on donations would level the playing field and force what you call "bankrupt" political parties to actually make their case in order to exist, not just win elections. Then the parties which truly deserve to die (rather than those whose supporters are too poor to stump up) would do so. I think at two quid a pop that's a lot fairer and a lot better value than the donationI involuntarilly make to the Tory Party everytime I go shopping.
Interesting that the 'Left' are completely missing the point. It is not the role nor function of the State to fund political parties. By doing so you dangerously alter the relationship between those parties and the State. It is the thin edge of a rather insidious wedge.
In the UK we have a position today where in effect the Labour Party is bankrupt (I think the BNP are in a similar boat). Indeed it is being kept in existence by the Co-Operative Bank - one is sure they are bending prudent lending criteria to advance it money. If you don't want it to go bankrupt you can open your cheque book write a cheque and get off your fat arse and post it. If you can't be bothered to do this why the hell should you expect the State to do what you can't be bothered to do ? It is for you to use your own money to fund a political party, not for you to invent ways in which the State does that task.
Er, Owly, interesting how often you are missing the point.
In Germany we’ve had party funding by the state since 1959, introduced by a right-wing majority in the Bundestag. We don’t have a cap on donations though, although there are less very large donations since it was ruled that they must be published at once.
You are concerned about favouring one party, I am concerned about finding a just system of party funding.
Since parties are an important factor in democratically governing the state, I can’t understand at all why you claim the state mustn’t be involved in funding them. Is it very difficult for you to understand that with the card it wouldn’t be the state’s decision which party would get how many funds, but the citizens’ decision?
So you have State party funding in Germany ? Bully for you. We don't.
I believe if an individual wishes to donate money to a political party then that person should be free to do so. Matter of liberty. But it should be a matter of personal choice. Why should the state be in anyway involved in that personal choice ? It shouldn't. As Courtney points out it is basically nationalisation by the backdoor. And as I pointed out it is the thin edge of a nasty wedge. What you do in Germany is your affair. What we do in the United Kingdom is ours.
Well, there are a few reasons to see donations critically. August Baron von Finck is one of the largest donators of the FDP, and he owns a chain of hotels (among other companies). The FDP insisted in the coalition contract that hotels must be excepted from VAT, and this was done. Can you imagine any reason why, except one reason of course? In von Finck’s case it isn’t the first time that he donated, er, successfully, by the way.
As you know perfectly well I don’t want political influence according to wealth. This means one person one vote, and it implies that nobody must have disproportional influence on parties because they can afford it. And you can’t deny that parties that consistently cater for the needs of the rich have more funds for their campaigns because they get higher donations, even if it isn’t a clear case of corruption.
"Interesting that the 'Left' are completely missing the point. It is not the role nor function of the State to fund political parties. By doing so you dangerously alter the relationship between those parties and the State."
It only alters the relationship if the state decides how that money is allocated. This is empowering individuals, not the state. The reverse of course (and the point you are missing) is that giving people the unfettered right to finance institutions who then go on to become the government alters the relationship between them and the state. You call it liberty. In fact it's corruption.
Judgeing by the free post at election time, media cover, party election broadcasts.
Not to mention generous grants for admin to our elected officials. The State does go along way to Fund Political Parties.
If they did get funding from the Taxpayer, what would determine a Political Party? just the big 3? or all the others who are recognised as legal political parties. Not to mention you exclude any well meaning independants?
Or is it a case of "The Party Rules?", so long as the Big3 win!
Post new comment