decaying political organizations; (iv) to reduce the opportunity for undue influence; and, (v) to prevent corruption19. The arguments in support of public funding of political parties must, however, be read in the light of certain realities which may raise questions as to the usefulness of public funding of political parties, such as the following: • Friedman has observed that in the case of public funding of political parties during the 1994 elections in South Africa, the formula used to award funds to the political parties (generally parties got the same amounts for campaigning regardless of size) demonstrated that ‘the link between funding and voter support is not as direct as this theory supposes’. Rather, the election results showed that the amounts awarded to some of the parties did not help them to win a large chunk of the vote. In an environment where there are few voters who are not affiliated to any political party or have not taken a position as to which party to vote for and, more so, where the movement of voters across parties is minimal, public funding will have limited influence over voter opinion since voters are unlikely to be influenced by party campaigns20. • Public funding of political parties alone will not guarantee democracy. As Kumado argues, democracy cannot be achieved without inculcating in the populace democratic values, such as tolerance, freedom of speech, judicial independence, access to justice, respect for human rights and observance of the rule of law21. The institutionalisation and internalisation of democratic values in the larger society, popular acceptance of dissent, and the empowerment of the ordinary citizen is therefore critical22. Onuoha shares this view. He says that, “… regardless of financial arrangements within the parties themselves or among the parties, government and business, there is no way political parties will submit to democratic norms when the larger society has not cultivated the democratic values”23. 19 Refer to p. 267 of the judgment. Friedman, op cit, p.4 and p.5. At p.6 Friedman notes that following the 1994 elections in South Africa, the ruling African National Congress lacked ‘enthusiasm for state funding’, one of the main reasons being its ability to win public support and get its supporters to vote, hardly needing to ‘introduce itself to voters’. However, as ZANU (PF) learnt in Zimbabwe, voters cannot be taken for granted for ever, especially if new strong opposition parties emerge and/or economic decline, declining democracy, human rights violations, non-respect for the rule of law, etc are involved. 21 Kumado, op cit, p. 5. 22 Onuoha, op cit, p.2. 23 Ibid, pp. 12-13. Onuoha notes that in the case of Nigeria in the early 1990s, recommendations were made to the government to discontinue public financing of political parties since the attempt to encourage greater multi-party democracy through government funding of political parties did not bring about any appreciable changes in inter- and intraparty democratic practice. 20 9