The shame remains

I appreciate the response (September 19) of Professor Miller, chairman of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), to my column (September 10) titled 'Shame, Professor Miller'. He explains in his defence that the recommendations which the ECJ has presented to Parliament, to which I (and many others) have expressed strong objection, are the best compromise the independent commissioners could negotiate with the partisan commissioners.

He asserts "with a clear conscience that we did the best, when all we knew were taken into consideration". We are left to judge whether their best was good enough.

The careful outline which Professor Miller presents of the sequence of events leading up to the ECJ recommendations to Parliament is instructive. He tells us that the ECJ, and the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) before it, was actively discussing this matter of campaign finance reform for the last five years. He discloses that "Disagreement on public disclosure of the names of contributors was the rock on which the efforts of the commission broke, in seeking to have legislation in place for the 2007 cycle of elections."

After two more years of negotiations, "By April 2009, the commission had come to basic agreement on all elements included in the report that has recently been submitted to Parliament on the registration and financing of political parties, including further state funding of political parties and disclosure of contributors to political parties."

Two years ago, the ECJ had agreed to recommend state funding of political parties to Parliament, along with limited disclosure of political donors! Double jeopardy! What a profoundly shameful disaster that would have been!

What saved the day was the shame of the ruling party, which "could not agree to further state funding for political parties in circumstances where the Government could not pay civil servants, teachers, nurses and police".

"The nominated commissioners of the Opposition party countered by arguing that further state funding for political parties was the quid pro quo for their regulation. If there was to be no further state funding for political parties, then there had to be full public disclosure of all contributors to political parties."

State funding

Clearly, the Opposition wanted state funding desperately to demand full disclosure as the alternative, which (Trafigura in mind) they would want even less. Now only the ruling party stood against full disclosure, and they clearly stood quite firmly, for Professor Miller tells us that "This was the position in April 2010," just five months ago. Who would blink first?

According to Professor Miller, it was the independent commissioners who caved in. "The looming danger was that, again, we may go into the next cycle of elections without having legislation on this critical area."

The independent commissioners felt under pressure to reach some sort of compromise agreement rather than no agreement at all, and so: "Cognisant of heightened public interest in June on the matter of the accountability of political parties, the independent commissioners did a final round of consultation, fine-tuned and finalised the report to Parliament on the registration of political parties, and tabled it at the meeting of the commission on July 7, 2010."

Their compromise called for no public financing for political parties, and limited (secret) disclosure of contributions over $100,000 to political parties. They had looked at full disclosure and limited disclosure: "These positions had already been stated and debated. The independent commissioners had evaluated the self-interests and merits of both positions and had brokered workable compromises."

As I said at the beginning, I appreciate Professor Miller's response, because it provides us with the inside information that it was the independent members who caved in to the wishes of the politicians not to have full disclosure of the sources of all campaign contributions - all to avoid another general election without agreement in this very important area. Failure to have an agreement because of the unwillingness of the politicians to agree to a transparency measure necessary (if not sufficient) to substantially reduce corruption would have surely resulted in public shame being cried on the politicians.

I am still of the view that to have caved in to the wishes of the politicians to avoid transparency cries shame on the independent members, including the chairman. If they did their best, their best was not good enough.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon.