have been beneficiaries of party funding under this formula. The other parties are smaller and complain about their exclusion from funding; they argue that unless they get funding, they will not perform well in elections to the extent of garnering at least 5% of the total vote. In 2000, some Z$100 million was disbursed and shared between Zanu-PF and the MDC. As already noted above, since 2001, parties have been prohibited from receiving foreign funding. Section 6 of the PPFA spells out that: “No party, member of political party or candidate shall accept any foreign donation, whether directly from the donor or indirectly through a third person.” This prohibition on foreign funding appears to have hurt all parties, big and small. Both Zanu PF and the MDC had received significant donor support in the past. In fact, Zanu-PF was a major beneficiary of foreign funding since Independence8. For instance, ‘Tiny’ Rowland of Lonrho reportedly donated ZWD 14 million (Int’l $ 4,0 m.) to Zanu-PF to finance its 1996 election campaign (Financial Gazette21 May 1998). When he retired from Lonrho in 1997, Africa Confidential reported the event thus: “Lonrho has lost its close links with ZANU” (Africa Confidential 38 (24) 1997). In Zimbabwe the 1992 Political Parties (Finance) Act, which authorized state funding for political parties, merely formalized what had existed since 1980. Zanu PF had been receiving an annual grant of ZWD 32 million (Int’l $ 21 m.). From 1992, any party that gained 10 per cent or more of the seats in the 150- member parliament (i.e. fifteen seats) was entitled to state subventions. This meant that all the funding went to the ruling party, which controlled, until 2000, 97% of the 120 elective seats in Parliament. Supporters of the Act have argued that this is acceptable as many other countries have passed similar legislation9. Given the high threshold, the opposition parties did not qualify, while ZANU-PF received increased subventions. According to one calculation, ZANU-PF should have received the sum of ZWD 312 million (Int’l $ 33 m.) from state coffers by the end of 2000, or an average annual subvention of just under ZWD 40 million (Int’l $ 4,2 m.) (“The Unfairness of Party Financing,” Financial Gazette 31 October 1997). One opposition party challenged the constitutionality of the whole Act, and the 15-seat threshold in particular. The Supreme Court found in favour of the opposition, lowering the threshold to 5 per cent of the popular vote. Even then, from 1992 to 2000, only the ruling party was the recipient of these funds. No opposition party ever came near to qualifying for the statutory funding provided under this Act (Makumbe and Compagnon 2000) Until the June 2000 general elections, opposition political parties had failed to compete at the same pedestal as the ruling ZANU PF, thanks partly to the prolonged diversion of large amounts of tax-payers money into their coffers, creating a huge gap in financial resources of ZANU PF and other political parties. Where all the contesting political parties have roughly the same amount to spend on electioneering, voters are treated to a relatively balanced output of views and arguments and can therefore make informed decisions in the ballot box. 8 The MDC and many observers strongly suspected that the new law proscribing foreign funding was targeted at the MDC so as to cripple its operations and ultimately strangle it by starving it of resources. The MDC took exception to this law when it was proposed in Parliament. One of its MPs, Tapiwa Mashakada articulated the conspiracy theory thus: “We from this side believe that the Bill has been motivated by a number of reasons but primarily, the desire to limit the financial space of MDC. It was clear that Zanu PF had seen that the MDC was now becoming a power politically to reckon with. … This is an undemoracratic piece of legislation. It is not surprising as it is just a high gear on the part of government to try to subjugate the MDC into submission, which will never materialize (Parliamentary Debates, 3rd April 2001, 6501). 9 The PPF Act was not proposed in good faith nor was it based on ‘best practices’ elsewhere. Rather, it appears to have been motivated and guided by the exclusivist thinking and monopolistic shrust of the ruling party. In any case, in the eyes of Zanu PF, it was inconceivable that any other party could garner that many seats, especially after the 1997 Unity Accord. 21