provision on state financing for political campaigns. The core of the new legislation is a multi-pillared approach in which stricter restrictions on party funding are supplemented with state support for running costs and election campaigns. The specific aim of state funding is to strike a balance between public and private sources, and so to decrease the dependence of political parties on private donors. To finance campaigns the January 2004 law provides 0.1 per cent of the national budget for political parties or ‘citizens groups’. Based on figures for Serbia’s national budget of 2004, the total figure available for election expenses would be 227 million dinars (US $4 million).2 One-fifth of the amount is to be disbursed to all candidates equally, and four-fifths to the party that proposed the winning candidate. The maximum amount of private contributions allowed is set at one-fifth of the overall national budget, 45.3 million dinars (US $800,000). Funds not spent on campaign expenditures should be reimbursed to the state. However, at the first test for the legislation, the June 2004 presidential elections, the provision of state funding collapsed in disarray. Apparently by mistake, in March 2004, the ministry of finance calculated a much lower sum for state support for election campaigns based on presidential election laws which had been superseded by the January 2004 legislation. Claiming national budget constraints, the state subsequently attempted to enshrine the lower figure in law by passing an amendment to the January 2004 legislation.3 On the basis of the prior law governing the provision of presidential electoral expenses, total state commitments amounted to 12 million dinars, compared to the 227 million dinars discussed above (making a difference between US $200,000 and US $3.8 million). Following the rejection of the amendment enshrining the lower budget allocation (0.01 per cent of the state budget),4 the government eventually offered 45 million dinars (US $740,000). Representatives of 11
204
of the 15 first-round candidates announced their willingness to challenge the decision of the ministry of finance to disperse them 607,000 dinars (US $10,000), claiming entitlement to five times this amount.5 With the legal confusion created by state donations, private contributions also became mired in uncertainty. As noted above, levels of private financing are tied to levels of state financing. In the context of uncertainty over the levels of state funding it is unclear what sum is available for candidates and parties from private sources or what legal consequences arise from using the higher figure. It is still uncertain whether it is the state’s intention to abandon the central concept of the law (balanced financing from public and private sources) or merely to make shortterm savings for budgetary purposes. What is certain is that if the law is to work all the political parties must achieve a common interpretation of the law’s provisions before September 2004 local elections. Legal amendments must also be made to remove any ambiguities. Implementation controls must be improved, and a proxy should be appointed by the election commission to engage certified auditors in a process of verification.
A long way to conflict of interest legislation Public awareness of the issue of conflicts of interest reached its peak due to a series of conflict of interest scandals throughout the summer of 2003. Allegations were made against the minister for transport and communications and one of the prime minister’s advisers.6 These cases were bought to public attention through opposition political parties, and in the run up to the elections in December 2003, opposition groups sought maximum political capital from the scandals, and in the process closely aligned themselves with the commitment to legislative reform. In consequence, the law on the prevention of conflict of interest in
Country reports
GC2005 02 chap06 204
13/1/05 4:34:26 pm