EDITORIAL - JLP should want transparent party financing

The poll finding that a plurality of Jamaicans (36 per cent) view his administration as more corrupt than the former People's National Party (PNP) government (23 per cent) cannot have escaped Prime Minister Bruce Golding.

That perception of an an increasingly corrupt Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) government is significant not because it is necessarily true. But as Mr Golding is aware, perception is often more important than the reality it tracks. That, in part, is because the notions tend not to be totally baseless but have some basis in fact.

Either way, therefore, Mr Golding, his government and party have real cause for concern - especially given the context within which this perception exists.

The JLP government is less than three years old, against the 18 during which the PNP held power. The JLP, in opposition, highlighted alleged PNP malfeasance and campaigned on a robust anti-corruption platform.

Obviously, the Government's handling of the Christopher Coke extradition request, in which it appeared to go to great lengths to support an alleged crime boss, has contributed to the tarnished image of the JLP. We suspect, however, that that is not all, and that it will require more than Mr Coke's recent surrender to the United States authorities to burnish the administration's image.

It is against this backdrop that it would be in the interest of the JLP administration to be far more adventurous, than it now appears willing to be, with regard to proposed regulations for public party funding that are soon to be published by the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ).

Total transparency

The ECJ is not insisting on total transparency in the funding of parties. The likely option is for donations to be made known to the commission, but with the names of donors being identified and/or made public, in the event that a declaration is found to be false or has breached funding guidelines.

Apparently, this is the preferred position of private-sector interests, who are concerned that in a small society, they may be targeted if it is known that they contributed to one or the other of the parties. That the JLP is happy to accommodate this position, on the face of it, is understandable. Except that in today's Jamaica, the big contributors to parties and politicians are less likely to be legitimate firms than individuals who are awash with cash from other than legitimate enterprises. It is such people who would benefit most from a lack of transparency and/or robust questioning of the source of the money used to finance their election campaigns and party operations.

In other words, we believe that the governing JLP should insist on going beyond, rather than feeling itself constrained by - and happily so, it seems - the position of the private sector.

Indeed, we agree with the sentiment of Mr Peter Bunting, the general secretary of the PNP: "If any individual or corporate entity makes a donation that they are embarrassed about, or they want to hide, there must be something improper."

Mr Bunting says that his party will go along with the proposed standard as an interim measure, and to ensure consensus. "But it is not our ideal," he said.

Neither ought it to be the JLP's. And given the Coke affair and the public's perception of his role in the party, the JLP should be clamouring for transparency.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.