| Abstract: | Litigation initiated by the Institute for Democracy in Southern Africa against all political parties for the disclosure of donations initiated a debate over party-funding regulatory regimes. The case for disclosure and regulation emphasized the causal connection between secret funding and corruption as well as the weakening of democratic practice. An empirical assessment of these claims shows that secrecy has not brought about these predicted effects and that official institutions have been effective in uncovering and prosecuting political and other forms of corruption. Moreover, evidence is presented showing that the disclosure of donors' identities will prejudice smaller, opposition parties to the detriment of South Africa's multi-party democratic system. An appropriate regulatory regime for the country must emerge from a deliberative process, rather than a judicial decision, if it is to be effective. In addition, the regulations must balance transparency against the interests of smaller parties through innovative and country-specific monitoring mechanisms. |
