Shame, Professor Miller

Jamaica is poised at a delicate moment in her history when she can transition from a typical post-colonial society riddled with demagoguery and corruption, to a modern democratic state with the sort of checks and balances that allow transparency and reduce abuse of power.

Some post-colonial states have done this quickly; others stay much longer in a condition where they possess the trappings of democracy, but where connected persons siphon off national resources under the guise of providing services to the state, returning a proportion to the political party as "political donations". This is an expensive way to run a country, for contracts have to be overpriced to allow for political kickbacks, and so there is less to spend on health and education.

By our actions, Jamaican civil society can hasten the transition to transparency and deeper democracy, or we can postpone it, either by doing nothing or by taking actions which support the continuation of corruption. Politicians will promise transparency and accountability, but will try their best to continue the self-serving system as long as possible. Jamaicans who wish their country well must watch public affairs closely, and must speak out and take action where necessary to promote progress. Some wise person said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", and that is so true.

The so-called "independent" members of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) have recommended to Parliament that only limited disclosure of contributions to political parties be required by law. If enacted, their proposal would cause political parties to declare their sources of funding in secret (no transparency there) to a special committee (set up by the two political parties) which will examine them, and only make them public if a false declaration has been made. How this committee will ever discover that a false declaration has been made is unclear.

The ECJ takes this position in the face of widespread public support for full disclosure - locally and internationally. The leaders of the private sector and the general secretaries of the two parties have all come out publicly in favour of full disclosure (sincerely, I hope). I cannot recall a single person or organisation supporting limited disclosure - except Janet Morrison, head of the Private Sector Organisation's Justice Reform Committee, who was quoted out of a Gleaner Editors' Forum 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." So, possibly, there is disagreement within the PSOJ on whether disclosure should be public or limited.

If all political contributions of whatever size are made publicly available (say, on a website, as is done in several other countries) the public will be able to correlate them with contracts or waivers awarded, and thereby discover conflicts of interest and influence peddling. That would be a giant step forward against corruption, and would clear the private sector of accusations made against them of political corruption.

Protecting political donors

Yet, Professor Errol Miller, chairman of the ECJ, and an "independent" member, has defended the ECJ's position, (he says) to protect political donors from possible victimisation. This presupposes that local and overseas persons and corporations somehow have a right to privacy when they make political contributions. If a local or overseas person or corporation wishes to make a donation to a Jamaican political party, this is a not a private matter, for it could affect the outcome of an election, or the way taxpayers money is spent, or the type and quality of the roads we drive on, or the health of the natural environment.

If a person does not wish his donation to be made public, then maybe he should keep his money to himself. But then, it seems to me, that is exactly what the political parties are afraid of: a reduction in political contributions. Yet, civil society wants an end to drug dealers and gangsters contributing to political parties. It is inevitable that political donations will decline with increased transparency, but that is not an argument against having transparency.

And so, ultimately, the recommendation of the so-called "independent" members of the ECJ defends the ability of the political parties to raise funds. Remember that in Jamaica an "independent" member means that the two parties agree on the person, not that the person will take a decision independent of the interests of the two parties.

Shame on the independent members of the ECJ, and shame on you, Professor Errol Miller. You all are holding back our progress. I expected better of you!

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