Shame, PSOJ

Last Tuesday's Gleaner contained a report of a recent Gleaner-commissioned Bill Johnson poll that 36 per cent of Jamaicans think there is more corruption in the current Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) administration, while 23 per cent believe the previous People's National Party (PNP) government was plagued by more acts of corruption; 41 per cent said they could not determine which government was more corrupt. Respondents may not be sure which party is more corrupt, but the majority are in no doubt they are both corrupt.

The same Tuesday Gleaner had a lead story 'Loopholes loom': "There are growing fears that proposed new regulations governing the registration and financing of political parties will not go far enough. The proposed regulations will not force political parties to make public disclosure of their donors - one of the key demands from critics who have argued for years that secret contributions to political parties fuel wide-scale corruption. Analysts say drug lords and other criminals donate money to political parties in return for protection and other favours while some businesses receive kickbacks for their political contributions."

What is proposed is that political donations be disclosed in secret to a committee set up by the two political parties, which will make public the amounts each party receives but not the identities of the donors. How in God's name is this going to put a stop to political corruption?

Personal assets

This is similar to anti-corruption legislation where each MP is required to declare their personal assets in secret to an entity set up by Parliament, so that an unknown watchdog can compare their assets over time to detect any unusual increase in wealth which might be due to corruption. The fact is that no one has ever been prosecuted under this ineffective legislation.

The only information made public is whether a parliamentarian has made a declaration of assets or not. I do not believe any serious effort is made to cross-check whether the secret declarations are correct; or whether the assets of family members of public officials have made any sudden, unexplained jump. If declarations were public, those who know would be able to challenge the truth of the declarations; but no, declarations are made in secret, to protect the privacy of the politicians. Indeed!

If any information declared is leaked, the whistle-blower can be sent to jail for a very long time. I wonder if the coming whistle-blower legislation will protect those who blow the whistle on corrupt politicians?

In the same news article Janet Morrison, head of the PSOJ Justice Reform Committee, is quoted as saying: "We have proposed that all contributions should be disclosed to the ECJ and a select committee in the ECJ will disclose the amounts that are donated, but not the names." Morrison added, "They will keep that confidential and they will use that information to monitor political parties." She argued that the PSOJ was concerned that if the names of donors and their amounts were made public, the reputation and image of such contributors might be compromised.

Donations kept secret

But precisely the reverse is true. It is when the donations are kept secret that the public wonders whether there is a correlation between donations and contracts or waivers awarded. The PSOJ should want the names of donors and the amounts to be made public, to protect the reputation and image of the contributors. Unless there is a correlation!

The Gleaner story was even more revealing. "PNP General Secretary Peter Bunting and JLP treasurer Christopher Bovell told the Editors' Forum that they would not be opposed to laying all the cards on table. 'We agreed to the disclosure to the committee as an interim step because it was better than nothing, but that is not our ideal', Bunting said. 'If any individual or corporate entity makes a donation that they are embarrassed about or they want to hide, there must be something improper', Bunting argued. 'The JLP recognises the position of the ECJ that private-sector companies are wary of public disclosure, but if the PSOJ was to say there was a substantial movement from that, the JLP would go with it', Bovell said."

So the politicians want public disclosure, but the PSOJ doesn't; it gives 'private' sector a new meaning.

Shame, PSOJ! Don't you really want an end to political and private-sector corruption in Jamaica? If your members don't want anyone to know to whom they give political donations, then maybe they shouldn't give any. Donations are voluntary, and donors are not supposed to receive favours in return. Please don't block and hold back progress in bringing transparency into campaign finance reform just to protect your dark secrets.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com