Daniel Thwaites | ‘A’ for honesty, Mr PM

The Prime minister gets an ‘A’ for honesty with his somewhat jarring admission that crime is beyond his administration’s capacity to handle, but that won’t give much solace to the citizenry cowering under the growing threats.

I have no intention of giving Mr Holness a hard time for admitting what was already obvious. Those who need to make heavy political weather of it will no doubt do so.

Incidentally, when I read that Matthew Samuda was to be joined to the Cabinet, my first thought was “good move” because Samuda had moved the dial regarding environmental matters which is no small feat. For a brief and glorious moment it appeared as if Jamaica might have the benefit of a real live environmental minister.

But it was just a moment. For soon thereafter I read that Samuda is to be joined to the security ministry, meaning that it’s his skills as a political operator Mr Holness is pulling on, not his area of policy expertise.

More broadly, my concern is that Mr Holness had driven a coach and horses through the Constitution of the country in his mission for re-election. I won’t recite the history that proves that the PM’s relationship to the Constitution is somewhat spotty. But for those who hate the 1970s and all that it entailed, bear this in mind: Only in the 1970s is it even arguable that the constitutional provisions for a state of emergency have been so sorely abused.

What was clearly meant to be a temporary measure to respond to emergency exigence has now been woven into common policing. And led like lambs to the slaughter by those responsible for shepherding them, the bewildered and frightened public would shred their own legal protections in a minute. So the pollsters tell us that most Jamaicans want the army deployed to do policing, and support for the states of emergency will, no doubt, command a majority.

A frightened people will do as you say. A frightened people will hand you more power. Still, never underestimate the people. Don Anderson’s poll results published yesterday had the support for SOEs falling from 81 per cent to 49 per cent. Maybe we’re wising up!

I’m not saying this whole thing is part of some diabolic plan by the PM, but it does fit neatly and nicely into the inevitability of near elections. A little too snugly for my comfort. Plus it’s not unheard of for politicians to plot carefully and cynically towards an electoral victory.

But, again, I don’t think that of Mr Holness and his team. I do, however, feel that the lack of capacity the PM admits to won’t cause him to seek help from more competent quarters. Instead it paves a direct path, out of desperation, to draconian measures and the never-ending militarisation of the society.

Election Spending

My math skills aren’t as developed as the election commissioners or the parliamentarians who, after all, have to read the budget.

By the way, hands up, to those of you who believe that most of the parliamentarians read the budget. Actually there are about a dozen members on either side of the aisle who have both the capacity and inclination to read it, and we sort of know this and even celebrate it, but that’s something to explore further at another time.

Still, I’ve always hungered for the hilarious results that would ensue if a feisty reporter and cameraman just decamped outside Gordon House after a budget-vote and asked basic, but detailed questions about it. I guarantee you that it would provide newsfeed and fodder for months after that. Will some news organisation please indulge me?

Anyhow, The Gleaner is reporting that the two major political parties had over $100,000,000 to spend in the East Portland buy-election. “According to the ECJ, the PNP received $47,761,005 while the JLP received $53,070,000.”

Now with that kind of money you can buy some voters, don’t it? Plus, if East Portland alone is that expensive to buy, what about when the whole country is up for sale? Sorry, up for a general election?

The curious thing is that The Gleaner goes on to explain that as far as the law is concerned:

“Candidates and contributors must declare all contributions of $250,000 or more. Under the law, candidates may accept a maximum of $1.5 million from any one donor and are only allowed to spend $15 million on election campaigning. The parties, however, are allowed to accept contributions during the period of an election campaign, but the contributions should not exceed $31.5 million.”

So if my little math is right, both parties report receiving money in excess of the allowable amounts. And since it wouldn’t have occurred to either party to spend beyond the acceptable limits, they would have had dollars left over after the spectacle. Right?

Not right at all! Because, of course, as astronomical as they are, nobody actually believes that these numbers are accurate and complete. Which itself speaks to the lack of confidence in the system of tracking and reporting election spending.

For one thing, we rely on self-reporting. Is that a good idea? Has there ever been an audit? For another, our law is deliberately designed to miss the mark, for the requirement is for self-reporting on what is received once a campaign has been declared. So what about before the campaign is declared and the combatants know that elections are on the horizon?

The whole thing is rotten and crying out for comprehensive reform. Donors don’t generally give piles of money without having some specific purposes in mind. And what a way that East Portland seat was valuable!

I’m not saying there aren’t some golden-hearted supporters of democracy out there, but I am saying that it would be splendid if the Jamaican public could track the relationships between donors and party policy, between donors and contracts, between donors and individual politicians. It might even be revolutionary.

- Daniel Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com