R 291148Z JUL 09
FM AMEMBASSY WINDHOEK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 0679
INFO SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L WINDHOEK 000272 
 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/28/2019 
TAGS: PGOV WA
SUBJECT: PARTY FINANCING OPACITY A HUGE BOON TO SWAPO 
 
REF: WINDHOEK 118 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Dennise Mathieu Reason 1.4 (b) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary: Political parties in Namibia have no legal 
requirement to disclose the sources of private domestic 
funding, while public funding is dictated by the number of 
seats a party holds in the National Assembly.  Both systems 
heavily benefit the ruling South West African People's 
Organization (SWAPO), which has a massive funding advantage 
heading into November's national elections.  Foreign funding 
-- of which SWAPO is widely rumored to benefit -- by law 
should be declared, but shortcomings in electoral legislation 
mean that parties are not compelled to do so.  Pending 
amendments to the Electoral Act do not address the financing 
issue, suggesting SWAPO most likely will retain its sizable 
monetary advantage for several elections to come.  End 
summary. 
 
------------------------------------------- 
WHAT THE ELECTORAL LAWS SAY ABOUT FINANCING 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) Namibian electoral law -- particularly the guiding 
Electoral Act of 1992 -- says almost nothing about the 
regulation of funding for political parties in Namibia. 
Parties are not compelled to disclose the identities of 
domestic funders, and there are no prohibitions against 
parties operating private sector entities to raise funds. 
The only portion of the Act that touches upon the funding 
issue, Article 46, does note that foreign funding of parties 
must be declared.  However, the act does not specify how this 
must be done, nor does it provide for an enforcement 
mechanism. 
 
¶3. (U) As for public money, Namibia since 1997 has had in 
place a system that annually awards parties public money 
based on their representation in the National Assembly. 
Since 1997, the government has awarded approximately N$190 
million (more than $20 million) to political parties, nearly 
three-quarters of which has gone to SWAPO.  SWAPO alone was 
awarded almost N$27 million (almost $3 million) in 2008, 
dwarfing the slightly more than N$8 million received by all 
other parties combined.  Parties have no obligation to 
disclose what they do with these funds once they receive them. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
IN PRACTICE, DECK STACKED IN SWAPO'S FAVOR 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶4. (C) The ultimate result of the opaque nature of private 
funding and proportionality of public funding is that SWAPO 
can employ an overwhelming advantage at campaign time, 
according to several local political commentators.  Graham 
Hopwood of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) 
told Poloff on July 23 that while no one knows the extent of 
SWAPO's private financing, it far outstrips even their 
sizable public funding.  First, most private businesses in 
Namibia clearly favor SWAPO given its status as ruling party. 
 Secondly, SWAPO reaps benefits from its private sector 
holding companies, Zebra Holdings and Kalahari Holdings. 
Kalahari, for example, has interests in printing, transport, 
and other firms, including half of local satellite 
broadcaster DSTV.  While noting that he could not 
substantiate the rumor, Hopwood said he has heard SWAPO earns 
more annually from its DSTV dividends than it gets from the 
national fiscus.  Lastly, SWAPO -- and in particular 
President Pohamba -- frequently uses state resources in 
campaigning.  Pohamba, for example, will use the presidential 
plane on campaign pit stops.  The legality of such moves is 
not clearly spelled out in the law. 
 
¶5. (C) As for foreign funding, the system currently in place 
is unenforceable and SWAPO in particular gains from foreign 
donations.  Only one sizable donation -- $N240,000 to SWAPO 
in 2003 from the Chinese Communist Party -- has ever been 
publicly acknowledged (see Reftel for more information on 
Chinese support for SWAPO), while the Chinese Communist 
Party, Angola's ruling MPLA, and even South Africa's ruling 
ANC are widely rumored to have financed SWAPO in recent 
years.  China in particular is rapidly expanding its business 
linkages in Namibia, so large contributions to SWAPO would 
make sense from a business standpoint.  SWAPO is not the only 
recipient of funds, however.  Leaders of smaller opposition 
parties have told Hopwood of donations from political parties 
in Scandanavia and from the British Labor Party, for instance. 
 
¶6. (C) The lack of a mechanism in which to declare foreign 
funding is a huge impediment to making this information 
public, and until the law is made more clear, it is unlikely 
that parties will seek to follow it.  Anton Bosl, head of the 
Konrad Adenauer Stiftung's Namibia office, told Poloff on 
July 22 that he recently went to the Electoral Commission to 
ask about foreign donations, but they told him they had no 
information and were not the right people to help him.  Bosl 
said he had no clue to whom to turn otherwise. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
OPPOSITION FACES UPHILL FIGHT IN NOVEMBER 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶7. (C) Hopwood and others see little chance of the political 
opposition making a dent in SWAPO's support in the upcoming 
November elections, in large part due to their severe funding 
disadvantage.  The new Rally for Democracy and Progress, a 
SWAPO breakaway formed last year, has no seats in the 
National Assembly and will therefore not receive any public 
funding.  Estelle de Bruyn, a political reporter at Die 
Republikein, noted that the party is currently being run out 
of party leader Hidipo Hamutenya's Windhoek house on a 
shoestring budget.  The party has reportedly received some 
backing from northern businessmen, but it is apparently 
nowhere near enough to properly compete with SWAPO. 
 
---------------------------- 
CHANGE UNLIKELY ANYTIME SOON 
---------------------------- 
 
¶8. (C) Pending amendments to the Electoral Act -- which is 
still in the National Council -- contained no language on 
party funding, and Hopwood said that despite the shortcomings 
of the system, there is little prospect for reform due to 
lack of political will.  SWAPO clearly does not want to 
change a system that works to its benefit, but Hopwood also 
noted that the opposition also does not want more 
transparency around funding.  Smaller parties do not want to 
expose their donors to SWAPO scrutiny, which could cause them 
to lose out on government contracts or even make them targets 
for retribution.  Ultimately, while Hopwood's IPPR does try 
to shed light on the issue, party financing is not a 
hot-button political issue for the majority of Namibians. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶9. (C) Namibia's current campaign laws will make it 
difficult, if not impossible, for smaller opposition parties 
to take on SWAPO for the foreseeable future without some sort 
of change to campaign finance laws.  Even with resonant 
campaign messages, opposition parties will find it difficult 
to campaign in a country as geographically vast as Namibia 
without campaign resources.  As long as it remains in power, 
SWAPO's use of holding companies will generate significant 
revenues that, even without public funding, will dwarf the 
rest of the opposition combined. 
 
 
MATHIEU