Make Political Donations Transparent

A well-known supermarket chain owner, Min Bahadur Gurung, generously donated land to the CPN-UML for its new headquarters. Gurung and his wife attended a foundation-laying ceremony in Kirtipur, together with Prime Minister and UML chair KP Sharma Oli and his wife. The ruling UML has had to relocate its central party office many times as a result of the 2015 earthquake that destroyed the Balkhu-based office building. The party desperately wanted a modern party office of its own in the Kathmandu Valley. The party's current headquarters, located in the Siddhi Man Singh Memorial Building in Chyasal, Lalitpur, is frequently inundated by floods in the nearby Manohara River.

In their quest for a permanent party building, the UML and its chair found a willing donor in Gurung, who not only gave the pricey land but would build a modern party office on it. Gurung's surprising contribution made news for all the wrong reasons, but his generosity was lauded by numerous UML party members, including chair Oli and other prominent UML leaders. The contribution drew much criticism owing to Gurung's questionable reputation and current investigation into his alleged involvement in tax evasion. He is among the accused in the Lalita Niwas Land fraud and has already received a jail sentence. He was released on bail. No doubt, the donation would help the party as famous as the UML in having its own modern office in Kathmandu.

Following the discovery of the businessman's questionable business integrity, the contribution from Gurung sparked debate. The UML general secretary and other high-ranking leaders said that receiving Gurung's donation for their party was not inappropriate. According to the UML general secretary, Gurung's tax evasion and donations are entirely different matters. His comment clearly intended to stave off criticism of the party.

Controversy

The controversy around UML gaining donation worth over one billion rupees from Gurung has generated concerns about the ethics of a national-level party. People questioned how a party like the UML could accept a donation for building their party's office from a businessman suspected of tax fraud and murky land deals. Three UML leaders, Bhim Rawal, Binda Pandey, and Usha Kiran Timilsena, received the party’s clarification notices for raising questions regarding contributions from a ‘businessman having a bad reputation’ to the party.

Many believe that corporate houses and rich elites, such as Gurung, can influence our politics by providing substantial financial support to political parties. Instances have shown that wealthy individuals have exercised power in national politics since the restoration of democracy in the 1990s. There has been a tendency of selecting wealthy persons to serve as legislators, ministers, and ambassadors.

Wealthy individuals frequently seek political influence across the world to secure favourable regulations or protections. The contributions made by Gurung and other Nepali businesspeople to political organisations like the UML, Nepali Congress, the CPN- Maoist Centre, and others demonstrate the tremendous effect of money on politics. Wealthy elites are sometimes blamed for influencing lawmakers by shaping legislation affecting government contracts, taxation, and import-export facilities. Because of large contributions from wealthy individuals, governments may prioritise donor-friendly policies while ignoring the demands of the general population. The tendency can lead to parties becoming embroiled in controversies, undermining their legitimacy.

However, Nepal is hardly the only country in which rich elites or large-scale funders influence politics. Wealthy contributors' influence on elections and party objectives has long been a worldwide issue. Billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and several other affluent people are major political funders in the United States. Adelson, a casino magnate, was well-known for helping Republican politicians, whereas Soros, a billionaire hedge fund manager, has been a vocal supporter of pro-democracy forces. Elon Musk, the world's richest person, just voiced his support for Republican contender Donald Trump.

Similarly, corporate leaders such as Michael Ashcroft have received public criticism in the United Kingdom for their donations. Questions have been raised about Ashcroft's influence, a billionaire businessman who has contributed significantly to the Conservative Party. Corporate contributors in India wield considerable clout over political parties thanks to electoral bonds, which were established in 2017 and allow for anonymous payments to parties. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) received the most through electoral bonds. Reports showed that in the fiscal year 2022–23, the BJP reported donations totaling USD 85.6 million, while the Indian National Congress is said to have received USD 9.5 million in the same time period.

Money coming from rich individuals or corporations in politics presents several risks. When questionable businesspeople join political campaigns by providing donations, voters become frustrated and skeptical. Donations made by people such as Min Bahadur Gurung have raised concerns about the relationship between politicians and the corporate elite.

Safeguards

To reduce the possibility of inappropriate influence, Nepal should follow best practices in the world and initiate reforms. Countries such as Germany and Canada have public lists of political donors, allowing citizens to see who pays political campaigns. In many democratic nations, political parties put limitations on the maximum amount of money that individuals can donate. These safeguards ensure that no individual or party has an undue advantage.

It will be worthwhile for a nation like Nepal to adopt a public funding policy for political campaigns to reduce dependence on private donations and ensure fair distribution of state resources across political parties. The National Election Commission's planned policy as per which the parties would receive public funding based on their standing in the national elections has yet to be enacted. Summing up, our political leaders must prioritise openness and public accountability by instituting required reforms in private donation policies. Leaders must reject suspicious donations, largesse, and gifts and develop financial channels that ensure accountability and transparency in financial dealings. For our democracy to prosper, political donations should be subjected to strict screening and transparency procedures, which will restore public confidence in parties. 

(Upadhyay is a former managing editor of this daily.)