In politics, it is not only about ideology and the achievement of ideals. The reality is that without money, there can be no political party. Where funding comes from determines the confidence that people have in politics in general but also in the functioning of democracy in a country. Because many believe in the concept of ‘He who pays, commands.’ Where do our political parties get their funding? Does it come from local companies that operate in a fair way, foundations, foreign donors, or “Sugar Daddy” anonymous?
Introducing transparency, regulation, and creating more clarity in the funding of political parties is of utmost importance! In Curaçao, the ‘Landsverordening Financing of Political Organisations’ (referred to as: Landsverordening) was introduced in 2010 to promote integrity in political parties.
Despite the Land Ordinance being a step in the right direction, Transparency International (TI) in its 2013 report still identified several loopholes and ambiguities in the wording of the laws. These can reduce the effect of the rule’s operation. TI recommended evaluating the financing of political parties and renewing laws to make control of political groups and their individual candidates more effective.
The Land Ordinance obliges a political party to submit an annual report and a financial report before April 1 to the Electoral Council (CE), which is the continuation of the Curaçao Headquarters. The report should contain information on the financial position of the party and a consolidated statement of income and expenditure. KE sends the financial report to Stichting
Overheidsaccountantsbureau (SOAB), which checks whether the data in the report is correct. Finally, SOAB sends its report to the EC.
Political parties must also submit a summary of gifts/donations before 1 February of each year to the EC. This also applies to individual candidates who participated in the State election must submit a summary of the gifts received one month after the election day to the Election Commission. In turn, the KE may also ask the SOAB to verify the veracity of the information received. The results of the SOAB controls are kept in the archives of the KE.
One of the loopholes in the law is the absence of an obligation to publish data. The Electoral Council and the SOAB, according to article 20 of the Land Ordinance, have to abide by an obligation of confidentiality. Any violation of this is considered a crime.
The Land Ordinance also does not require the political party itself to publish its financial information and does not allow the publication of summaries of gifts to political parties and their candidates.
This makes public scrutiny of the financial support of political parties practically impossible. According to the report by Transparency International, it turns out that even in the case of a person making an appeal judging the Law on the Opening of Government, it is very likely that they will not receive information about the financing of political parties. To foster transparency, political parties must provide clarity on their funding, according to TI. Fulfillment of the Land Ordinance If the KE finds or suspects that a political party or a candidate has committed an act that, according to the Land Ordinance, is a crime, they file a complaint according to article 18 of the Land Ordinance with the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
During the election on March 19, 2021, a total of 353 people were candidates on one of the 15 lists. The 2021 Annual Report of the EC mentions the following: ” on 23 September 2021, the EC, in accordance with the legal rule, notified the Prosecutor-General that by that date, 87 candidates had not complied with article 12 paragraph 2 of the aforementioned regulation”. This is 25% of the total number of candidate
Arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’ the publication of data Curaçao Transparent Foundation (Curaçao Transparente) organized a debate during the Day International Anti-Corruption in December 2021 on the topic of ‘transparency’. One of the statements discussed was: ‘Funding of political parties should be public’.
A panel of experts from the business world and the public sector gave their views on the matter. Those in favor of publication stressed that the current finance law is not adequate to achieve the desired transparency for the people. According to the Pros, publications are beneficial both to the community and to the politician himself.
Opponents, however, argued that the publication of The names of blood donors could have consequences for businesses that could stop donations to political parties, among other things, which risks stopping the legal flow of money and that political party campaigns are financed with criminal capital.
Proposed initiative law
In 2014, a State faction presented an initiative bill proposal to promote transparency in line with the recommendations of TI. The Hoofdstembureau (now the Electoral Council) becomes responsible for publishing the summary they receive and the financial information becomes available to everyone. Political parties would be free to determine how they collect and spend donations, as long as their actions are not illegal. The status of this proposal is unknown to Curaçao Transparente. Follow the money is important in the context of building trust in a democracy. To prevent political party funders from benefiting from the ‘payer, send’ principle and other companies and/or citizens are harmed, Transparent Curaçao insists on complete transparency about the sponsors and donors of political parties. The funding of our political parties must be carefully monitored through sound and feasible laws.
There are also other holes in the funding of political parties that TI has identified and that will be analyzed in another article. It is important to follow the recommendations of this report For the dangers of integrity do not vanish of themselves. The recommendations made in 2013 will continue to be relevant and their implementation can contribute to good governance. This article is the third in a six-part series that draws on the recommendations of Transparency International published ten years ago. OPINION: Foundation for Transparency.