The HSRC, commissioned by the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC), studied the evolving political funding framework under the Political Funding Act (PFA), originally the Political Party Funding Act of 2018. The Act regulates public and private funding, mandates disclosure of large donations, limits annual contributions, and established the Multi-Party Democracy Fund (MPDF). Using a literature review, surveys and expert interviews, the study examined oversight, underuse of the MPDF, gender equity in representation, disclosure thresholds, donation limits, incentives, and potential regulatory reforms. This article discusses some findings and insights from the research study.
Image generated using AI (andranik.h90, Freepik)
South Africa’s Political Party Funding Act (PPFA) No. 6 of 2018 was enacted to promote transparency, accountability and fair competition in the financing of political parties, with the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) as the regulatory authority. The Act was amended in 2024 to include independent candidates and representatives and was accordingly renamed the Political Funding Act (PFA). The legislation regulates public and private funding, mandates disclosure of large donations, limits annual contributions, and established the Multi-Party Democracy Fund (MPDF).
The IEC commissioned the HSRC to examine the country’s evolving political funding regulatory framework as initially contained in the PPFA. Conducted between October 2024 and March 2025, the study addressed several research questions to guide discussion on the experiences and future of political funding regulation in the country.
Through a nationally representative public attitudes survey using the HSRC’s South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS) and key informant interviews with experts, the researchers examined the appropriate institutional role and capacity requirements for effective oversight and enforcement, and the underutilisation of the MPDF to which members of the public can donate to all represented political parties collectively. The study also assessed whether political funding mechanisms have advanced (or hold the potential to promote) gender equity in political representation, evaluated the adequacy of current disclosure thresholds and donation limits, considered the potential for tax and other incentives to encourage private contributions to the MPDF, and explored whether South Africa should consider moving from an income-based to an expenditure-based regulatory model to improve funding transparency.
This work culminated in an HSRC research report, ‘Regulating Political Finance in South Africa: Perspectives on the Political Finance Act and Its Implementation’, published in June 2025.
Symposium
Centred on this report, the IEC hosted the first-ever Symposium on Political Funding in South Africa in June 2025.
This landmark event aimed to foster informed dialogue on the effectiveness of the current regulatory framework, the future of political funding regulation and its impact on sustaining a healthy and inclusive multi-party democracy. The symposium convened a wide range of high-level stakeholders, including political party representatives, members of Parliament, local and international academia and civil society organisations, the media, donors and the business sector.
Selected findings from the HSRC SASAS political funding survey
Political engagement and donations
Public attitudes towards political funding must be understood against a backdrop of widespread dissatisfaction with the political and democratic status quo in South Africa. The survey showed that about four-fifths of the adult public believed that the country was headed in the wrong direction, and 58% of the public expressed discontent with the functioning of democracy. Political trust was low, with only 17% expressing confidence in political parties and just 14% in politicians. While political disengagement was also prevalent, 66% of age-eligible voters still expressed the intention to participate if an election were to be held the following day, as three-quarters regarded voting as a civic duty.
Political donations by the public remain rare in South Africa; with fewer than one in ten adults having ever donated to a political party or independent candidate. Among non-donors, nearly three-quarters (73%) expressed no interest in donating in the future. Nevertheless, about half of the public was generally neutral or positive about the freedom to donate to political parties and independent candidates, suggesting that many South Africans still recognise the legitimacy of political giving in a democratic system.
While overall engagement is low, understanding how the public perceives the rules governing donations provides insight into the regulatory framework’s legitimacy.
Public support for political donations rules
Public awareness of the PFA is generally low: 61% of the adult public had never heard of it, the survey showed. Awareness was strongly linked to education, socio-economic status and political engagement. Public support for laws like the PFA was also relatively muted: only 42% of the public supported such regulation, 14% opposed it, with 44% uncertain or ambivalent. At the same time, there was substantial public concern that political parties and independent candidates were influenced by donations from wealthy elites: 16% of the public were extremely worried, 21% very worried, and 33% somewhat worried. Public perceptions of transparency in political donations were mixed; roughly half of South Africans believed the public had too little or far too little information about who donated to political parties and independent candidates.
Public opinion was polarised on the R15 million annual donation limit for political parties and independent candidates. Nearly half (46%) of adults considered the cap too high or far too high, indicating a desire for greater transparency and accountability, while 29% viewed it as appropriate and only 10% thought it was too low. Opinion was similarly divided on the rule that donations above R100,000 had to be disclosed by donors, political parties and independent candidates: 41% considered this threshold appropriate, 22% viewed it as too high, and 23% believed it was too low.
The role of the Electoral Commission
About two-thirds (64%) of the adult public believed the IEC should be primarily responsible for collecting information on political party and independent candidate funding. A majority also considered it important for the Electoral Commission to collect information on political expenditure, with a significant portion assigning it high importance scores.
However, a substantial portion of the public lacked confidence in the IEC’s ability to accurately collect funding information from political parties. Only 21% of adults were confident in the IEC’s ability to take action against political parties and independent candidates who fail to comply with the PFA or provide inaccurate funding information.
The Multi-Party Democracy Fund
The public was largely uninformed about the Multi-Party Democracy Fund (MPDF), with 58% never having heard of it. There was widespread reluctance to donate to the MPDF even after its purpose and features had been explained: nearly three-quarters of adults said they were not at all (47%) or not very (27%) willing to donate. The possibility of a tax rebate on a donation to the MPDF had only a limited influence on public willingness to donate.
Changes to political finance regulations
A majority (55%) of the public supported tracking political party expenditures as an effective way to verify the accuracy of reported donations, reflecting a belief in financial monitoring as a tool for enhanced transparency.
Gender representation
Approximately half (49%) of the public supported the idea that political parties receiving public funds should be required to promote and support female representatives, which perhaps signals a demand for stronger gender equity measures in political life. Future research should also explore how political funding mechanisms might be used to advance the representation of other vulnerable and marginalised groups in South Africa’s political system, and whether there is similar public backing for this.
Selected findings from expert interviews
Effectiveness of IEC in implementing the PFA
Most respondents believed that the IEC is effectively implementing the PFA, but acknowledged its strengths and weaknesses. For instance, respondents felt that the administrative arm for political funding was reasonably capacitated, but that the investigation function was not sufficiently capacitated.
Ensuring effective compliance with the PFA
Experts highlighted the challenges the IEC faced in ensuring effective compliance with the Act. Enhancing transparency and consistency during enforcement was viewed as crucial for building trust among stakeholders, including political parties.
Is the IEC the most appropriate institution to implement the PFA?
While most experts interviewed believed the IEC should retain overall responsibility for implementing the PFA, there were arguments for considering alternative or supplementary institutions. Some suggested that the IEC’s dual mandate (administering elections and enforcing the PFA) created inherent conflicts, and political funding regulation might have been better managed by a more technically focused body.
Thresholds and caps
The debate over whether the current thresholds and caps had to be increased, decreased, or maintained hinged on different perspectives regarding transparency, administrative feasibility, and the role of private funding in shaping political outcomes. While some respondents argued for full transparency or lower limits to mitigate undue influence, others highlighted the practical financial needs of political parties, particularly during election campaigns. Any changes should therefore be based on empirical evidence.
Concluding remarks
During the study period, Parliament chose to disregard empirical evidence on reasonable adjustments provided by the Parliamentary Budget Office and recommended that the President should double the donation disclosure threshold to R200 000 and the annual donations cap to R30 million. These proposed amendments arguably weaken the transparency and accountability standards in the PFA. On 18 August 2025, PFA Regulations were promulgated in which the President implemented these recommendations. These legislative amendments do not align with public opinion and most expert opinion as established by the HSRC’s study. By enabling larger donations to be made without public scrutiny, the amendments risk leaving voters less informed about potential undue influence by wealthy donors on political parties, or their policy choices and decisions once in power.
Research contacts and acknowledgements
This article was written by Adv Gary Pienaar and Dr Benjamin Roberts, co-principal investigators of an HSRC study to examine South Africa’s evolving political funding regulatory framework and subsequent engagements.
For more information about this work, please contact Roberts, a research director in the HSRC’s Developmental, Capable and Ethical State (DCES) research division:
This work was commissioned by the Electoral Commission of South Africa and the DCES research team also included Dr Steven Gordon, Prof. Joleen Steyn-Kotze, Dr Yul Derek Davids, Dr Ntombizodumo Mkwanazi, Dr Odilile Ayodele, Mr Johan Viljoen, Dr Ngqapheli Mchunu, Dr Samela Mtyingizane, Dr Shanaaz Dunn and Ms Noncedo Maphosho, under the executive leadership of Prof. Narnia Bohler-Muller. Also see acknowledgements on page 4 of the research report.
If you enjoyed reading this article, please click here to subscribe to the HSRC Review quarterly magazine.
