[ADRN Working Paper] System of Political Finance Across Asian Democracies
2021-05-27
ADRN Working Paper
System of Political Finance Across Asian Democracies
ADRN members
- Indonesia & Malaysia & Pakistan & Taiwan -
The term “political finance” is used to describe all funds that are raised and spent for political purposes. Across democratic countries, various models exist based on which political parties and candidates can raise funds for political campaigns and contest for public offices. Regarding the use of political funds, a system of checks and balances is crucial to ensure level of the playing field for all associated actors. In this working paper series, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Taiwan provided an overview of their respective systems of political finance. Through comparing, contrasting, and providing comprehensive feedback of each system, the authors examined viable ways to enhance transparent political finance systems.
In order to address this issue, the Asia Democracy Research Network (ADRN) has been conducting research on the System of Political Finance Across Asian Democracies based on country cases since 2020. As part of this research project, EAI has planned a working papers series composed of four working papers.
Country Case 1: Indonesia
Indonesian Political Party Finance for a Better Accountability
Political parties play a crucial role in a democratic country like Indonesia. To fulfill its responsibilities, parties need sufficient financial resources to select public officials, to adequately place representatives in institutions, and operate appropriate funding programs. A given party's endeavor to collect money from many available resources is not a problem itself.
However, the authors Ridho Imawan Hanafi and Sri Nuryanti from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, note that such practices could pave the way for corruption and abuse, which could harm the accountability and integrity of the parties.
Political Funding in Malaysia: Starting from the Ground Up
In Malaysia, “black-box decisions” made between political parties and Government-Linked Companies(GLCs) have been a major concern in sustaining the country’s democratic system. Such practices exacerbate the monetization of politics, which leads to the problem of business-government intertwined corruption. The authors, Iman Amran and Aira Azhari from the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs, point out that Malaysia does not have adequate legal enforcement to punish such misdeeds in politics which is evident in the 1MBM scandal.
Pakistan is equipped with legal frameworks that regulate the political finance of both politicians and political parties. Frameworks are institutionally empowered in the Elections Commissions of Pakistan(ECP) with the latest Act of Parliament, the Elections Act 2017. Notwithstanding, the author Ahmed Bilal Mehboob from the Pakistan Institute for Legislative Development and Transparency, points out that the ECP does not fully monitor the role of money in politics.
As Taiwanese politics opened its doors to diverse democratic actors from political parties to citizens, the country’s money politics has been activated as well. During the late 1990s, the Political Donations Act was enacted, and the law has since played a vital role in regulating the transparent political finance in Taiwan. The author Chin-en Wu and Yun-han Chu from the Academia Sinica and Asian Barometer analyze the regulatory framework in detail, showing the law’s willingness to reduce the would-be coercive influences of wealthy donors by setting a cap on the amount of money flows into the politics, and specifying possible categories of donors.
