Editorial | Transparency in party finances

Transparency International’s (TI) latest call for greater openness about the funding of the political parties and how they finance election campaigns, is a reminder that Jamaica has unfinished business on that front.

Jamaicans generally don’t know who funds their parties, since it is not compulsory to share that information with the public, and the parties are under only limited obligation to give specifics to the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ).

They do not even have to publish their annual financial accounts, except to file audited statements with the ECJ.

For a fleeting moment a dozen years ago, the People’s National Party, then in government, did disclose its accounts to the public. In 2022, the current leader, Mark Golding, promised to do so again, but appears to have reneged on that pledge. Or he might claim that it has been delayed.

He should fulfil the promise, including getting commitments from donors to reveal their contributions. The governing Jamaica Labour Party should do likewise.

Meanwhile, the ECJ – which has been strangely quiet on a wide range of issues, including calls for the updating the Political Code of Conduct – should begin consultations on making the reporting of political contributions above certain amounts fully transparent. That information is confined to the commission.

OPPORTUNITY IS GREATER

Indeed, in the absence of transparency in how political parties and their campaigns are financed, the opportunity is greater, as TI noted its November policy report, for dark money to enter politics and for, as this newspaper has consistently warned, for the people with the deepest pockets to purchase for the society the government they believe it needs. Which is one that protects the interests of those who paid the bills.

It is against that backdrop that we endorse Transparency International’s observation, which in fact is, or ought to be, a universal principle, that the “public has the right to know how money influences politics”.

“Information about sources of funding and expenditures provides important context for making informed decisions at the ballot box and holding officials accountable,” TI noted in the document. “Transparency also deters illicit interests from seeking to buy political influence.”

As TI noted, more than 190 countries are parties to agreements or conventions, or have themselves passed legislation that commits them to enhanced transparency in how elected officials fund their campaigns, or the funding of political parties.

That, on its face, is a strong declaration of commitment to fight against corruption; the promotion of integrity in public life; and striving for good governance.

But said TI: “However, relatively few countries are acting on that commitment. While over two-thirds of countries require political parties and candidates to report on their campaign finances, opacity remains prevalent: an expert survey of 109 countries in 2021 found that one in three countries did not mandate the publication of financial reports, while only 36 published details of donations — such as their timing, amounts, and identification of donors — online.

“Even fewer, just 19, published that information with common identifiers.”

SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE

Jamaica stands somewhere in the middle of the lot – at least with respect to the publication of contributions to political parties during an election period, which is six months before an election is constitutionally due, and up to six months after the vote, or the day an election is announced, if that precedes what would be the normal start of the election period.

People who contribute J$250,000 or more to a party have to report the donation to the ECJ, but the information is not public.

Further, in cases where a firm or an individual makes a contribution to a party, but up to two years prior to the donation had a contract(s) with the government valued at J$500,000 or more, that contribution is to be reported. Similarly, if a contract is entered two years after the contribution, the donation should be reported.

However, the public is privy to none of this information, and the skeletal data on contributions provided by the ECJ in the aftermath of the 2020 general election (the first one in which the provisions of the 2016 law was used) was insufficient for a robust analysis of the information on who might have been the pipers, if there were any.

Further, a 2014 amendment to the Representation of the People Act that requires political parties to be registered, and obligates them to file annual audited accounts with the ECJ. These returns should include “a statement showing the sources of the funds of the political party”.

The ECJ has issued no substantive reports on its general review of the state of affairs of the parties, including its satisfaction with their financial record-keeping. Neither has it indicated whether it has the skills internally to analyse accounts – although it has the power to order independent audits.

It is possible, of course, that the island’s registered political parties not only scrupulously adhere to the letter of the law with respect to their financing, but go beyond it.

However, nearly nine in 10 (86 per cent) Jamaicans believe they live in a corrupt country, according to Vanderbilt University’s biennial survey on perceptions of democracy in the Americas. That report found that 87 per cent believed most politicians to be corrupt.

It is in the interest of politicians to do everything to change for the better the perception – and realities – of those beliefs.