The 11th parliamentary election slated for December 30 represents the first real test for new election expenditure allowances.
The legal limit on election expenses for each contesting candidate is determined on a per capita basis, and varies in line with the size of the electorate in each constituency, with a uniform ceiling that applies for everyone.
According to a recent gazette notification, candidates are allowed to spend Tk10 per voter (previously Tk8) in their constituency for election campaigning. For example, that means candidates in Jhalakathi 1 – the smallest electorate in the country numbering 178,785 voters – are restricted to legally spend less than Tk18 lakh for election.
The new ceiling of Tk25 lakh thus comes into play for constituencies with more than 250,000 voters – and some 275 of the 300 constituencies fall in this category. Consequently, we may take the Tk25 lakh spending limit – which it was raised to from Tk15 lakh prior to the 10th parliamentary election in 2014 – as applicable to most candidates.
Yet Bangladeshis have long bemoaned the entry and subsequent entrenchment of “black money” in their politics, and studies exist to demonstrate how the spending limits have been flouted in the past.
To be sure, this “black money” in politics does not always denote corrupt or criminal intent. But it is always undisclosed, and that is enough to allow the scope for its illicit use. When people say “get black money out of politics”, what they are calling for is to establish formal channels of political financing that is transparent, and instil accountability in the system.
In a study conducted by Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), the anti-corruption watchdog, it was revealed that in the scheduled January 2007 general election that was postponed at the last moment (known as “1/11”), candidates seeking nominations had spent three times the stipulated spending limit even before the date had kicked in for election spending.
The Election Commission neither took any measures to prevent it, nor did they take any action against the perpetrators of such violations, according to TIB. In another recent survey by TIB related to illicit finance in politics, the spending patterns of candidates in 40 constituencies shed light on the sheer scale of the discrepancy between the legal limit and what was actually spent by candidates in the 9th parliamentary election held on December 29, 2008.
The 88 candidates in the surveyed constituencies spent Tk4,420,979 on average during the legal timeframe for election campaigning. The highest amount spent by a candidate was Tk2.81 crore.
Keeping in mind the previous expenditure limit of Tk15 lakh, it means candidates in the 40 constituencies included in the TIB study exceeded the limit thrice over. The subsequent increase of the limit by Tk10 lakh is unlikely to prevent it from happening again.
In 2006-2007, Transparency International successfully piloted Crinis – a research, benchmarking and advocacy tool– in eight Latin American countries, triggering both debate and reform.
The project assessed levels of transparency and accountability in political parties, and election finances looking at laws and practices in the participating countries.
Following its success in Latin America, the Crinis Pilot Project was launched in the Asia Pacific region. This pilot stage started in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Nepal.The main goal of the project was to contribute to the strengthening of the legitimacy and credibility of democratic institutions by increasing the levels of transparency and accountability in the political finance systems in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Nepal.According to the Crinis methodology, countries are assigned a score between 1 to 10 on a number of indicators or dimensions. Bangladesh's mean score is 4.5 (termed as “regular”). Among all the categories, only the scope of reporting (mean score 9.2) garnered a satisfactory mark for Bangladesh.
On the other hand, in dimensions such as bookkeeping (mean score 2.8), reporting (mean score 3.2), reliability of reporting (mean score 2.0), public disclosure (mean score 2.2), and sanctions (mean score 2.2), the scores have not been satisfactory.
In comparison to the two other countries that were part of the pilot stage, Bangladesh did attain the highest mean score (4.5). Indonesia scored 3.7, and Nepal scored 2.8. However, TIB concluded all these countries have a lot to develop in terms of monitoring political finance and transparency.