Editorial | Case for transparency

On Tuesday, Greenland’s parliament, the Inatsisartut, passed a law banning foreign and anonymous financial contributions to the country’s political parties, and lowering the cap on the amount that citizens can give.

Under the legislation, a party can now receive, in aggregate, no more than 200,000 kronor (€27,000) from private donors, with a limit of 20,000 kronor per individual.

Previously, contributions of less than 10,000 kronor could be kept confidential. The figure has been lowered to 1,000 kronor.

The regulations apply to the parties, their local branches, youth arms and candidates contesting elections. They will apply to the vote for members of the Inatsisartut, scheduled for April 6.

The law was a direct response to Donald Trump’s declared intention to acquire Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, for the United States. According to Mr Trump, the takeover would be in the strategic interest of the United States and the West.

The US president has not ruled out the use of military force to achieve his goals, but has also raised the prospect of applying tariffs and other economic sanctions on Denmark to force it to cede the territory.

AMEND EXISTING REGULATIONS

Jamaica is not facing the same, or immediately so, geopolitical threat that drove Greenland’s legislators to act. But the principle of transparency in who finances elections – and therefore the influence donors can have over governments – is as valid in Kingston as it is Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

In the face of Mr Trump’s pressure, Greenlanders want to ensure that foreign and domestic money does not distort election outcomes, and for voters to know which local interests may be seeking to influence the process. They can then have a sense if domestic players are in cahoots with foreign ones.

Such transparency is good for democracy, lest it becomes merely a commodity that those with the deepest pockets can buy.

It is in that context that The Gleaner – following Transparency International’s (TI) report on transparency in political party/election financing globally – last month reprised its call for Jamaica to upgrade its laws on the matter, in favour of greater openness.

We repeat that suggestion now, and insist that it should be in place for the next general election, which, constitutionally, must be held by the end of this year. The life of the current Parliament concludes in September.

The Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), whose recommendations on election laws are, by convention, usually acceded to by Parliament, must urgently make the case for amending the existing regulations.

THRESHOLD FOR REPORTING

Under Jamaica’s election-financing rules, there is an ‘election period’, starting six months before an election is constitutionally due – or from the date an election is announced, if that is earlier – and up to six months after the vote. During that period, certain contributions to parties and candidates have to be reported to the ECJ.

The threshold for reporting is J$250,000. However, the fact of the donation is not automatically a public matter. It is confidential to the recipient and the ECJ.

The law also requires that people who make contributions to parties, but who, two years prior to the donations, received government contracts valuing J$500,000, report their contributions. They also have to report their contributions if they enter contracts with the government up to two years after the donation was made.

Again, only the ECJ has to be told about the donations. The public remains in the dark.

The commission does provide a skeletal outline of money collected by the parties and candidates during a campaign. However, specific details are limited to the number of donations received within a range of bands, and the aggregate amount of money collected.

In other words, voters have no information on the specific contributors, or the amounts of their donations.

GAPING LOOPHOLE

The system is, at best, opaque, offering only a myth of transparency, defeating the purpose for which the law was supposedly intended.

Even the definition of the election period offers a gaping loophole that is exploited by the parties. Prior to entering the formal election period, the parties build up their election war chests, often in kind, with expensive campaign paraphernalia paid for by donors.

This, too, must be addressed.

Jamaica’s political parties often attribute their reluctance to transparency over how they are financed, and by whom, to the size of the country and the concerns of their donors, who, they say, fear being marked for their gifts.

The parties and politicians in Greenland who voted for the bill passed on Tuesday could make a similar argument.

At over 2.166 square kilometres, Greenland, by land mass, greatly dwarfs Jamaica, which is just under 11,000 square kilometres.

But Greenland is a vast, mostly frozen, and largely empty country. Its population is under 57,000, which is substantially fewer than the 73,000 people who reside in Hanover, the Jamaican parish with the smallest population.

Moreover, Greenland’s population is a mere two per cent of Jamaica’s. Which is the statistic that really counts.

If Greenland, with its tiny population, is not scared of transparency, or of telling voters who finance election campaigns, why should Jamaica?