VZCZCXRO5096
PP RUEHMA RUEHPA
DE RUEHRY #0570/01 2741608
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 301608Z SEP 08
FM AMEMBASSY CONAKRY
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2976
INFO RUEHZK/ECOWAS COLLECTIVE
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHMFISS/HQ USAFRICOM STUTTGART GE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CONAKRY 000570 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV KDEM PREL GV
SUBJECT: GUINEAN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTS CAMPAIGN FINANCING 
PROGRAM 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY.  The Guinean Government finally 
implemented the political party subsidy program envisioned in 
the May 2007 revisions to the country,s electoral code.  The 
ruling party received one-third of the total $300,000 
allotment while the rest of the money was spread thinly among 
the other 48 parties.  Opposition leaders have criticized the 
process, claiming that the distributions unfairly favored the 
ruling party while simultaneously propping up a host of small 
parties that lack popular support.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) In accordance with the May 2007 revisions to 
Guinea,s electoral code, the Government of Guinea 
distributed a total of 1.5 billion GnF ($300,000) in 
subsidies to 49 registered political parties.  Although the 
law included a complicated formula for determining individual 
allotments, the political parties met with the National 
Independent Electoral Commission (CENI) and agreed to amend 
the distribution mechanism.  According to contacts, half of 
the funds were shared equally among all 49 parties.  The rest 
of the funds were distributed according to how many deputies 
the party had at the National Assembly, the party,s 
participation in national elections since 1992, the party,s 
total number of elected officials nationwide, and the 
party,s total number of women in elected positions. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Contacts from the major opposition parties, 
including the RPG (Rally for the Guinean People), the UPR 
(Union for Progress and Renewal), and the UPG (Union for 
Guinean Progress), criticized the subsidy program for 
favoring the ruling PUP (Party for Unity and Progress) and 
for unfairly propping up minor opposition parties.  UPG 
President Jean Marie Dore told POL LES that the Ministry of 
Territorial Administration and Political Affairs (MATAP) had 
allowed various political parties to register, but did not 
verify that those parties had met the legal requirements 
detailed in the electoral code.  According to Dore, a number 
of political parties only registered so that they could 
obtain access to the new government subsidies.  (COMMENT. 
The UPG won three seats in the National Assembly, but refused 
to accept them because of allegations of elections fraud. 
END COMMENT). 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The Secretary General of the RPG, Dr. Diane, said 
that it was inappropriate to consider a party,s number of 
elected officials since Guinea has never held free and fair 
elections that truly reflect the interests of the people.  He 
added that a party,s participation in the electoral process 
should not have been a factor because the process has never 
been transparent.  (COMMENT.  Although one of the largest 
opposition parties, the RPG has boycotted elections in the 
past and holds few elected positions.  END COMMENT.) 
 
¶5.  (SBU) A member of the UPR,s Executive Bureau, Cherif 
Abdourahim, said that the UPR,s share of the subsidy was 
insignificant when compared to the party,s commitment to the 
democratic cause in Guinea.  Cherif emphasized that the UPR 
had participated in all national and local elections since 
1992, despite problems with fraud and transparency.  He told 
POL LES that the UPR deserved far more money than it 
received.  (COMMENT.  The UPR is the only opposition party 
represented in the National Assembly, holding 20 of 114 
seats, although it has claimed that it was cheated out of a 
significant number of additional seats.  END COMMENT.) 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Based on the agreed upon distribution mechanism, 
the ruling PUP received the lion,s share of the funds, 
approximately $101,000, or one-third of the total subsidy. 
The PUP,s allies, also known as &La Mouvance,8 received 
another $24,000.  The opposition UPR received the second 
largest allotment, after the PUP, of $26,000.  Distributions 
among other major opposition parties were as follows:  RPG - 
$13,000, UFR - $8500, UPG - $7000, and UFDG - $5488.  A 
number of parties received equal allotments of $5000 
reflecting their share of the first half of the funds, and a 
small share of the second half because of participation in 
previous elections.  Thirteen recently established parties 
received about $1000 each, which was a percentage of the 
$2500 lump sum allotment given to each of the older parties. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The political parties have been arguing amongst 
themselves about how to distribute the funds since the 
revision to the electoral code was passed more than a year 
ago.  Most of Guinea,s political parties are very small, in 
many cases representing no more than a couple hundred 
 
CONAKRY 00000570  002 OF 002 
 
 
members.  The original electoral revision did not provide for 
equal disbursements to all parties.  According to opposition 
party contacts, the main reason behind the subsidy program 
was to give major opposition parties the financial means to 
more effectively campaign against the powerful ruling party. 
However, the ultimate distribution decision was made in 
consultation with the CENI, within which the ruling PUP and 
its allies holds a clear majority with ten out of the twenty 
voting members.  In the end, the PUP left with one-third of 
the money while the rest of the funds were distributed thinly 
among 48 other parties, with three of the four major 
opposition parties receiving little more than the rest of the 
group.  END COMMENT. 
RASPOLIC