Role of money in politics

Submitted to Sir Naveed yousaf Sandu

Submitted by

Hassan moavia

Neha urooj

Rohan noor

introduction

Money is a necessary component of any democracy: it enables political participation, campaigning and
representation. However, if not effectively regulated, it can undermine the integrity of political
processes and institutions and jeopardize the quality of democracy. Thus, regulations related to the
funding of political parties and election campaigns, commonly known as political finance are a critical
way to promote integrity, transparency and accountability in any democracy. international IDEA has for
over 20 years been working on the issue of Money in Politics (MiP), and contributes to the discussion of
political finance reforms by analyzing trends, opportunities and challenges related to money in politics.
international IDEA has for over 20 years been working on the issue of Money in Politics (MiP), and
contributes to the discussion of political finance reforms by analyzing trends, opportunities and
challenges related to money in politics. Political funding is being more influenced by technology, such as
crowd funding, online campaign spending, and digital reporting and disclosure, which presents both
opportunities and difficulties for political parties, candidates, and oversight organizations. International
IDEA has been gathering comparative data and carrying out evidence-based research on the relationship
between political finance and digital technology because it recognises the huge potential of
digitalization in transforming conventional political finance practises. Political funding is being more
influenced by technology, such as crowdfunding, online campaign spending, and digital reporting and
disclosure, which presents both opportunities and difficulties for political parties, candidates, and
oversight organisations. International IDEA has been gathering comparative data and carrying out
evidence-based research on the relationship between political finance and digital technology because it
recognises the huge potential of digitalization in transforming conventional political finance practises.
Political funding is being more influenced by technology, such as crowdfunding, online campaign
spending, and digital reporting and disclosure, which presents both opportunities and difficulties for
political parties, candidates, and oversight organisations. International IDEA has been gathering
comparative data and carrying out evidence-based research on the relationship between political
finance and digital technology because it recognises the huge potential of digitalization in transforming
conventional political finance practises.

Role of money in Pakistan`s politics

 In such countries such as Pakistan palys a very key role in politics. Here people are not well
aware of their rights. So when people don`t know about heir basic rights so theyb are not in such
a position that they werte participate fairly in elections or they demand their rights. pakistan is a
country that where people shares different cultures ,languages ,values and norms. Beside
majority of thr population having the same religion but they are devided in different sects. Some
areas such as tribal areas of KPK ,south Punjab ,balouchistan and Sindh have the fudal
system .so here politics can be played on different cards sich as religiously, on sects, gaining
confidence of feudals . a large population of pakistan living under the poverty line so their votes
can easily buy by fiving some money ,by giving biryani on strikes and there are so many tools .
somewhere in south Punjab candidates willing to give a motorbike on ten votes so every one
used it`s own tool. Mostly politics try to reach feudal b y giving them some money or some
incentives. A lot of money is used when a poltical party distributes it`s tickets . recently an
audiorecording of son of the former chief justice of Pakistan is emerge in which he was
demanding one crore and twenty lakhs for the PTI ticket. In 1976, the ceiling on election-
related expenses contained in the act had been set at Rs40,000 for a National
Assembly seat, and Rs25,000 for the provincial assembly. Citing the “rising
cost of living” Khan’s ordinance of 1988 raised these ceilings to Rs500,000
and Rs300,000 respectively, more than a tenfold increase. The ordinance was
promulgated two days before nine political parties announced an electoral
alliance to be called the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI), which would field
candidates against the PPP on almost all seats. It came four days before the
notification for the elections, and five days before the nomination of
candidates was set to begin. The ‘cost of living’ had indeed gone up in the 12
years between 1976 and 1988, but nowhere near the tenfold increase
envisioned in the ordinance. Far from reflecting any increases in the ‘cost of
living’, Khan’s ordinance of ’88 was in fact the earliest official
acknowledgement that the cost of doing politics was about to rise — very
steeply. With 1,167 candidates running for National Assembly seats in 1988,
and 3,408 candidates in the contest for provincial seats, the total expenditures
to be incurred in campaigning alone would be over Rs1.6 billion, assuming
each candidate spent only up to the ceiling allowed by the law. Of course, in
reality the amounts spent would have been far in excess. By the standards of
that time, this was a considerable sum of money.

Consider this figure, the permissible limit on campaign spending, as a proxy

into the rising cost of doing politics in Pakistan. By 2002, the ceilings had
risen to Rs1.5 million for a National Assembly seat, and Rs1m for a provincial
seat. In the four elections since 1988 for which the figure was hiked up, three
of those were elections that saw a new force being ushered into the electoral
arena — the IJI in 1988 and 1990, and the PML-Q in 2002.

The ceiling on election expenses is only proxy here. It represents only the
entry cost into the game. But it is the best proxy we have to identify the trend:
that the cost of doing politics in Pakistan has ri To support the growing
expenses associated with the game, politicians increasingly turned towards the
cultivation of rackets. This is one big difference between the civilian politicians
of the 1950s and those that emerged from the long decade of Zia’s rule. The
earlier generation had secure sources of income through their land holdings
that they used to fund political activity, whereas the new rabble that entered
politics in the liberalisation days had to build their own revenue lines. To
support the growing expenses associated with the game, politicians
increasingly turned towards the cultivation of rackets. This is one big
difference between the civilian politicians of the 1950s and those that emerged
from the long decade of Zia’s rule. The earlier generation had secure sources of
income through their land holdings that they used to fund political activity,
whereas the new rabble that entered politics in the liberalisation days had to
build their own revenue lines.sen very sharply since the transition to civilian
rule in 1988. If the dollar doubled in value versus the rupee in this time, or the
price of a litre of petrol increased by a factor of 10, the cost of the entry ticket
into politics went up by a factor of 37 in the same period.

Nawaz Sharif epitomises the new generation. Many others have remarked on
the obvious observation that his family started as humble owners of a small
steel mill until they were touched by the general’s hand in the early ’80s. But
in noting the rise of Nawaz Sharif, there is another view to also keep in mind.
Nawaz Sharif epitomises the new generation. Many others have remarked on
the obvious observation that his family started as humble owners of a small
steel mill until they were touched by the general’s hand in the early ’80s. But
in noting the rise of Nawaz Sharif, there is another view to also keep in mind.

Consider this. In the 1990 election that brought him to the stage of national
politics for the first time, Nawaz Sharif was one of four contenders for the IJI’s
candidate for prime minister.

The other three included Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, who believed that since he
was interim prime minister perhaps he could just continue on in the same role
for the sake of simplicity. There was Ijaz-ul-Haq, who considered himself the
right heir to his father’s legacy, and there was Mohammad Khan Junejo, who
believed that the party owed him the slot because it had been unlawfully taken
from him in the first place. And hadn’t he decided to withdraw his challenge to
Zia’s dismissal of his government in the Supreme Court under the assurance
that he would be his party’s prime minister in the next election?

Where are these individuals now? Junejo passed his legacy to Hamid Nasir
Chattha, who is little more than someone with whom Nawaz Sharif will
negotiate a seat adjustment. Ijaz-ul-Haq is lucky if he gets an invitation to a
TV talk show, let alone being in a position to lead a major political party. And
Mr Jatoi left this world quietly in 2009, leaving behind little more than a
wistful obituary or two.

For a quarter of a century since that election, no challenger has been able to
emerge from within the PML to Nawaz Sharif’s authority. And it is my
contention that behind that rather spectacular rise to power there is a new
ingredient, which was the unique relationship with the country’s ruling
business elites that Sharif was able to build that his rivals could not.

And that relationship was not built with smiles and earnest handshakes. And
the improbable hold on power that Sharif has demonstrated in the decades
when the cost of politics has spiked so massively did not come from his
personal charisma. It took money and bargaining over access to the rentier
terms that govern who will have a place at the top and who won’t.

Success in that game is what it takes to do politics in this country. Just look at
the tussle within the PTI, with one group complaining that the other is using
money to acquire influence. This is how the line between rents, profits and
corruption has been blurred to such an extent in this country. This is why
politics has become mainly a game of money

Where are these individuals now? Junejo passed his legacy to Hamid Nasir
Chattha, who is little more than someone with whom Nawaz Sharif will
negotiate a seat adjustment. Ijaz-ul-Haq is lucky if he gets an invitation to a
TV talk show, let alone being in a position to lead a major political party. And
Mr Jatoi left this world quietly in 2009, leaving behind little more than a
wistful obituary or two.

For a quarter of a century since that election, no challenger has been able to
emerge from within the PML to Nawaz Sharif’s authority. And it is my
contention that behind that rather spectacular rise to power there is a new
ingredient, which was the unique relationship with the country’s ruling
business elites that Sharif was able to build that his rivals could not.

And that relationship was not built with smiles and earnest handshakes. And
the improbable hold on power that Sharif has demonstrated in the decades
when the cost of politics has spiked so massively did not come from his
personal charisma. It took money and bargaining over access to the rentier
terms that govern who will have a place at the top and who won’t.
Success in that game is what it takes to do politics in this country. Just look at
the tussle within the PTI, with one group complaining that the other is using
money to acquire influence. This is how the line between rents, profits and
corruption has been blurred to such an extent in this country. This is why
politics has become mainly a game of money

Money plays a very key role in politics . in recently tha AL QADIR trust case is
the perfect match to relate it.incentives was giving to the business tycoon`s to
grap their wellbeing . no one can touch them . governments give many
subsidies to those who are supported their paties help in their election
compains, give them to their private helicopters . in 2008 elections we saw
hoe jahangair khan grasp the candiadted to Pakistan tahreek insaf ton
establish the government. Thing goes to the senate elections. ALTHOUGH the
Senate election is finally concluded despite all the apprehensions expressed
over the past one year regarding a possible postponement on one ground or
the other, the allegations about big money being used to lure provincial and
national legislators to vote in a certain way continue to reverberate. The media
has been awash with stories of ‘horse-trading’ and money changing hands. No
evidence is produced in support of such claims but candidates winning
without sufficient votes from their respective parties is cited as the major
ground for such allegations.

For example, the PPP won at least two additional seats in Sindh, apparently
with the support of MQM MPAs. It also managed to win two seats in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa despite its relatively small number of MPAs there. The PTI won
a seat in Punjab which could only be possible with the votes from the MPAs of
other parties adding to PTI votes

It is, however, important to point out that although most of the legislators vote
in the Senate elections along party lines, the law does not bind them to do so.
The law requires MNAs and MPAs to vote in the Senate election through
secret ballot and that is why voting against party direction in these elections is
not considered defection and hence not grounds for disqualification. Even in
India, where the Rajya Sabha election is conducted through an open ballot and
state legislators are allowed to show their ballot to their authorised party
representatives before casting it, voting against party direction is not
considered defection.

The framers of the election laws, therefore, did not envisage a vote strictly
along party lines and an allowance seems to have been made for conscience
voting. It is, therefore, not correct to assume that voting against party lines
was automatically motivated by personal gains. The allegations of money-for-
votes, however, seem more plausible in some cases, especially where party
discipline has weakened as in the case of the MQM or where voters are
independent such as in Fata. The allegations of ‘horse-trading’ are considered
serious enough that Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and PTI chairman
Imran Khan have openly and forcefully called for a change in the system of
Senate elections. It is unlikely that such a change will be possible in the short
run but the question of placing adequate checks and controls on the role of
money in politics has very much taken centre stage and will need to be
addressed.

ALTHOUGH the Senate election is finally concluded despite all the

apprehensions expressed over the past one year regarding a possible
postponement on one ground or the other, the allegations about big money
being used to lure provincial and national legislators to vote in a certain way
continue to reverberate. The media has been awash with stories of ‘horse-
trading’ and money changing hands. No evidence is produced in support of
such claims but candidates winning without sufficient votes from their
respective parties is cited as the major ground for such allegations.

For example, the PPP won at least two additional seats in Sindh, apparently
with the support of MQM MPAs. It also managed to win two seats in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa despite its relatively small number of MPAs there. The PTI won
a seat in Punjab which could only be possible with the votes from the MPAs of
other parties adding to PTI votes

It is, however, important to point out that although most of the legislators vote
in the Senate elections along party lines, the law does not bind them to do so.
The law requires MNAs and MPAs to vote in the Senate election through
secret ballot and that is why voting against party direction in these elections is
not considered defection and hence not grounds for disqualification. Even in
India, where the Rajya Sabha election is conducted through an open ballot and
state legislators are allowed to show their ballot to their authorised party
representatives before casting it, voting against party direction is not
considered defection.

The framers of the election laws, therefore, did not envisage a vote strictly
along party lines and an allowance seems to have been made for conscience
voting. It is, therefore, not correct to assume that voting against party lines
was automatically motivated by personal gains. The allegations of money-for-
votes, however, seem more plausible in some cases, especially where party
discipline has weakened as in the case of the MQM or where voters are
independent such as in Fata. The allegations of ‘horse-trading’ are considered
serious enough that Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and PTI chairman
Imran Khan have openly and forcefully called for a change in the system of
Senate elections. It is unlikely that such a change will be possible in the short
run but the question of placing adequate checks and controls on the role of
money in politics has very much taken centre stage and will need to be
addressed.

The question of money in politics in general and of political finance in

particular will assume much greater importance as we enter the active
campaign period for the general elections scheduled no later than August this
year. A major question that the Elections Act, 2017, has left unaddressed is the
limit on election spending by political parties.

Although our election laws have traditionally set limits on election spending
by individual candidates and these limits have been considerably enhanced in
the new law, there has never been a limit placed on election spending by
political parties. This probably was not so much of an issue in the past when
overall party spending was rather limited and almost all election-related
expenses were incurred by the candidates, but over a period of time the
dynamics of elections have changed.

Political parties now play a much greater role and exercise a much greater
influence on the election. As evidenced by the exit polls and through several
other manifestations, the percentage of voters who vote based on party
loyalties has steadily increased as politics matures in Pakistan. The expenses
incurred by political parties have, therefore, also increased since the last three
elections especially 2002 when the electronic media entered the electoral
arena as a major player.

Political parties are increasingly using electronic media for their direct and
indirect political messaging. These advertisements are not constituency-
specific and, therefore, spending on these cannot be technically and legally
counted towards the spending for a particular constituency for which there is a
limit prescribed by the law. Advertisements in the electronic media are
generally a big-ticket item and usually constitute the single largest item in
election spending. It is considered so exorbitant that in certain countries like
the UK, election advertisements on electronic media are disallowed by the law.
In some other countries like India, state television time is provided free of
charge to political parties using certain criteria for determining the air time
allowed to each party.
It is because of these rather recent developments that an election spending
limit on political parties is extremely important. Initial drafts of the Elections
Act, 2017 did propose a limit of Rs200 million for each party but the final
version omitted this. Giving a free hand to political parties in election
spending will promote the influence of big money in politics with all its
unhealthy effects.

With no limit on their spending, political parties will be tempted to tap into
such sources of funding which may not be legal and/or ethical. At least one
major political party in Pakistan has been under investigation and litigation on
charges of foreign funding. Uncontrolled spending will generate extra pressure
on parties to look for financiers who may have their own interests to serve
through the cultivation of political parties. The election spending limit is,
therefore, an important reform for consideration by all political parties.

Despite the lapse on political parties’ election spending limit, electoral laws in
Pakistan contain reasonable checks and limits on political finance. The
lingering problem, however, has always been the lack of adequate capacity and
will to enforce such laws by scrutinising such critical documents as the
election expense returns, annual accounts submitted by political parties and
statements of assets and liabilities submitted by candidates and legislators. It
is critical that the Election Commission is supported in installing an effective
political finance monitoring and enforcement secretariat adequately staffed by
professionals well before the general election.

Conclusion

Self-interest does set limits to what is politically feasible, but most people
defend their views about taxation in moral language. So much would be
gained from the wholesale rejection of the morally obtuse but tenacious ideas
of everyday libertarianism. Increasingly widespread understanding of how
capitalism works may help. We may hope that most people are coming to
believe that even under capitalism the organization of the economy and the
allocation of its product between public and private control is a legitimate
object of continual collective choice, and that this choice must be made on
grounds that justify it not only economically but morally, and by a democratic
procedure that legitimizes it.