Kenyan Parliament approved a bill for state funding of political parties (The Nation 21 July 1999; Pan-African News Agency 22 July 1999). For reasons of partisan or personal advantage, incumbents at the time of transition, during constitution-making and at the passing of legislation on political parties, elections and electoral commissions have preferred to address none or only some of the issues involved in political financing. The opposition parties which stand to benefit most from the adoption of regulations that enhance transparency and limit funding and spending have usually been too divided and too weak for their views and interests to influence these provisions strongly. 3.2. Corrupt Kickbacks Parties that were created within governing circles when dictatorial or autocratic incumbents finally bowed to pressures to reform their undemocratic systems - for instance the NDC in Ghana - had less need for political entrepreneurs with fat wallets. In their control of the state they already had a powerfully lucrative source of funding – kickbacks on government contracts and the sale of state assets. Gyimah-Boadi (2000) refers to a GHC 3 million (Int’l $ 4.189) donation to the governing party in Ghana by Construction Pioneers, a road-building company that had a huge contract with the government. Independent newspapers in practically every African country provide illustrations of the kickback. As many have observed, in the era of International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and donor country-inspired privatization programmes in Africa, “political privatizations” are proving to be even more lucrative channels for party and personal funding than the old “10 per cent commission” levied on the value of government contracts awarded. Africa Confidential dissects the interconnections between the leadership of the ruling party in Côte d’Ivoire, the Parti Démocratique du Côte d’Ivoire (PDCI), and the business class in the context of privatization. Needless to say, these opportunities for political funding through the control of the state become available to new parties as well once they are voted into office, as in Zambia (1991), Malawi (1994) and Nigeria (1999) (Africa Confidential 39(13) June 1998). 4. Regulation of Political Parties: a Comparative Overview Legal provisions governing the raising of political funds are relatively new ground in Africa. In general, the raising of funds by parties and candidates is a matter of unregulated self-help. Less than one in five African states has comprehensive laws to govern the raising of revenue, detail permitted sources of revenue, and prohibit others (such as foreign and corporate donations), or impose ceilings and specify sanctions. For instance, in Zimbabwe the Political Parties (Financing) Act prohibits foreign funding, whether directly from a donor or indirectly through a third person. Thus political parties are required by law to disclose sources of party funds and audited accounts – the minimum regulation required to grapple with issues associated with the difficult relationship between political financing and liberal democratic governance – exist only in a tiny minority of African states. Even in those states, implementation is usually a problem. In Ghana for instance, funding of opposition political parties came from a “group of young upwardly mobile, cellularphone clutching business executives and professionals who provided substantial financial backing for Professor Adu Boahen’s 1992 presidential bid” (Jonah 1998). Adu Boahen was the opposition challenger to the incumbent, Jerry Rawlings. In Zambia, trade unionists led the formation of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD), not only with their organizational skills and energy but also with donations from local business tycoons who regarded politics as business by other means and political parties as appropriate investments. Their donations either founded parties, which they owned, or made them king-makers in the parties they heavily bought into being. In Nigeria, politicians are called “money-bags” and local wags call the political system “nairacracy” and “contractocracy”, on account of the brazen role that money plays in politics and the corruption it engenders. In 1992 Nigeria held presidential primary elections during its unusually long-drawn-out transition programme. These 18