There is little doubt that possession of a presidential office gives the ruling party certain advantages that its challengers are unable to match. When an incumbent president seeks re-election, he or she often has many special advantages and privileges by virtue of being Head of State.
In emerging democracies and also in established ones it is not uncommon for opposition political parties to claim that the ruling party is misusing state resources for political party gain. Opposition parties in many African countries have complained that they are effectively competing against the State when they participate in elections.
While some African countries have legislation to control state funding of political parties there are not many examples of specific laws regulating party use of state resources. This is clearly an area where more research and advocacy is required.
In November this year Namibia is scheduled to hold its Presidential and National Assembly elections. The issue of Swapo using its incumbency advantage has already come up and is bound to resurface.
24/7 Head of State
Recent trips by President Hifikepunye Pohamba to several regions sparked controversy in the media as some of his speaking engagements were at party rallies. He was accused of using taxpayers’ dollars for party political activities rather than government purposes.
Commentators have stated that the playing field must be level for all political contestants in this year’s elections if Namibia is to uphold its democratic credentials.
“A line needs to be drawn in this regard, and it needs to be done soon. If not, it will help cast doubt on the fairness of the election scheduled for later in the year,” an editorial on the issue in The Namibian stated.
In response, defenders of the President’s trips say it is difficult to establish a dividing line between when President’s itinerary is purely party political as he has to discharge his duties as a Head of State all the time.
This view supports Ministry of Information Permanent Secretary Mbeuta Ua-Ndjarakana’s rebuttal: “The constitutional responsibilities of the President of the Republic of Namibia dictate that the incumbent shall be on duty 24 hours per day and seven days per week. This, in effect, means that HE President Hifikepunye Pohamba wears his hat as Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force 24/7.”
Ua-Ndjarakana further said the same constitutional responsibility made it impossible for the President to separate his party’s political responsibilities from his official government responsibilities.
Such gaps and ambiguities in the country’s electoral laws governing the use of state administrative and other resources, make it extremely difficult to separate legitimate actions by the incumbent from potential abuse.
Presidents are different
Given the importance of the incumbency factor in elections, some countries have attempted to create a clear legal framework regulating the use of state resources by political parties.
In Zambia, the Electoral Act No. 12 of 2006 and the Electoral Code of Conduct of 2006 prohibit any person from using state resources for political party campaigns, but give the president and vice-president an exclusive right to use state resources.
Section 7 (k) states :“A person shall not use government or parastatal transport or facility for campaign purposes; provided this paragraph shall not apply to use by the President and the Vice President in connection to their offices.”
This clause was introduced because of the controversies about the abuse of state resources that occurred during the 1996 and 2001 elections in Zambia. The rationale behind the insertion of the last part to this clause was that for security reasons the President and the Vice President are not allowed to use private vehicles.
The absence of an even playing field which adversely affected the elections of 1996 and 2001, which many observers saw as a travesty to democracy was the reason behind the passing of the law restricting the use of state resources.
In 1991, the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) swept to power on a popular wave with its leader Frederick Chiluba proclaiming that, once in power, the MMD would eliminate unfair access to state resources. However, once in power, the MMD did not address the issue and deliberate misuse of state resources continued. After his successor, Levy Mwanawasa, won the 2001 elections, the government of Zambia initiated electoral reforms to enhance transparency and level the playing field, this culminated in the passing of the Electoral Act of 2006 and the Electoral Code of Conduct (2006)
Although the law permits the incumbent president and vice-president to enjoy certain facilities, there is some discontent among the opposition political parties who view the ruling party as taking advantage of these privileges in ways that directly support partisan purposes and disadvantage the opposition.
Regional experience
In Malawi, Section 193 (4) of the constitution prohibits the use of state resources for campaigning for a particular political party.
Despite this prohibition it is apparent that where incumbency abuse occurs enforcement of the laws regulating elections in Malawi is weak. During the 19 May 2009 elections observers claimed that incumbent Bingu Wa Mutharika had used state resources for campaign purpose.
According to a European Union Observer mission report, the Malawian president travelled throughout the country during the campaign using a range of state-owned resources for campaigning including a helicopter, vehicles for his campaign team and supporters, and security services. It was also reported that regulatory agencies were used to print out campaign material.
In South Africa the Funding of Political Parties Act regulates state funding, but mentions nothing of how incumbents use state resources. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts largely controls the use of public expenditure by political parties but they are only as effective as parliament allows them to be.
“If we are unable to regulate private party funding, indirect funding … the use of state resources by incumbent parties, is likely to be largely below board. We are also certainly unlikely to regulate how political parties in power use state resources. I would suggest that this is a reason why electoral politics in most post-colonial Africa has been so one-dimensional,” Justin Steyn of Institute for Democracy in Africa (Idasa) noted.
US example
The issue of incumbency advantage is not confined to emerging democracies. Even more established democracies such as the United States have attempted to address the issue in their electoral law.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) administers and enforces the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Finance Law Act, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, and the Bipartisan Reform Act of 2002, pieces of legislations, which attempt to address, among other issues, the expenditure of presidential candidates during an election.
The laws provide for stringent guidelines for presidential candidates to disclose their campaign expenditures and puts a cap on campaign expenditure. But the laws do not provide specific guidelines on incumbent expenditure. The laws are more specific on the use of Air Force One, the plane the US President travels in.
Despite these provisions, in reality it appears the sitting presidents have used federal resources during their re-election campaigns as was the case with former presidents Bill Clinton in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2004. The media reported that Bush enjoyed presidential privileges during the campaign period ranging from a huge staff team and White House facilities.
In 2004, USA Today reported that while Democratic rival John Kerry had to dig into his campaign bank account to charter a plane to roam the country, Bush travelled at no cost to his campaign by simply declaring a trip "official" travel rather than "political."
Even when the White House deemed a trip as political, the cost to Bush's campaign was minimal. In such instances, the campaign must only pay the government the equivalent of a comparable first-class fare for each political traveller on each leg, Federal Election Commission guidelines say.
Usually, this meant paying a few hundred or a few thousand US dollars for the president and a handful of aides - a minuscule sum compared to the US$56,800 per hour that it was estimated it cost to run Air Force One.
Ultimately, the issue of incumbency advantage is a grey area in many democracies. There is definitely a case for further research with a view to establishing how regulation can ensure the playing field is level and that abuse of taxpayers’ money for party political purposes is avoided.
Further reading
1. Constitution of the Republic of Malawi: http://www.sdnp.org.mw/constitut/chapter20.html
2. The Electoral Commission of Zambia. Electoral Code of Conduct. http://www.elections.org.zm/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gi...
3. The Electoral Commission Zambia. Electoral Act of 2006: http://www.elections.org.zm/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gi...
4. Malawi Final Report Presidential and Parliamentary Elections May 2009 http://www.eueommalawi.org/Documents.html
5. US Federal Election Campaign Laws: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General
9. The USA Today. ‘Bush enjoys travel advantage on taxpayer-financed Air Force One’ http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-...
10. Southern Africa country profiles: http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/countryindex.htm
Election Watch is a project of the Institute for Public Policy Research in Windhoek, Namibia.