EDITORIAL: A democracy for purchase?

Within the next 18 months, if taken to its outer constitutional limit, Jamaicans will be required to vote in a general election. Such a vote will be affirmation that the country's democracy remains intact, about which the country tends to be glibly self-congratulatory.

But if the last time we voted provides any measure for the future, next year's election, and the Government it delivers, will be - to corrupt the title of Greg Palast's book about the process in America - an expensive democracy that is up for purchase.

That, of course, is assuming that nothing is done to remove the 'For Sale' sign that hovers over Jamaica's democracy.

Context is useful. It is estimated for the general election of 2002, Jamaica's two major political parties each spent between $400 million and $500 million. Their combined bill, therefore, would have been between $800 million and $1 billion.

By the time the country voted again five years later, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), which now forms the Government, and the People's National Party (PNP) are believed to each have forked out as much as $1.5 billion in their effort to entice voters - or a combined $3 billion. This, we remind, is the estimated bill for the central organisations, exclusive of spending by the candidates themselves.

in the dark

What is especially significant about these numbers is that no one, except for the tightest inner circles of the parties, knows where the money comes from. Voters are in the dark about who pays the bill.

Or, as the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) observed in its draft report on campaign financing, in the absence of clear, legally enforceable rules, there is greater room for those who pay to co-opt the candidates, and for illicit money to corrupt the system and undermine the rule of law. Indeed, this issue, if not robustly canvassed at the public enquiry into the matter, was a subtext on many minds in the Government's inexplicable manoeuvrings and prevarication in the Christopher Coke extradition affair.

But the potentially negative effect of opaque party financing is not just that it cedes control to dodgy people; it undermines genuine competition for elective office by giving an undue advantage with access to resources. This, ultimately, limits the potential pool of electoral candidates and circumscribes the democratic process.

These issues have been subject to much elaboration and debate in Jamaica. But long talk, unfortunately, has not yet translated into legislative action.

Nearly a year ago, for instance, the ECJ released its proposal for political party registration and financing, setting structures for the State to partially fund the parties and for the reporting of contributions by private donors. The proposals may not have gone far enough, but they represented a start and were endorsed by the legislature. But there has not yet been legislation on the subject.

A final report that specifically addresses campaign financing is soon to be tabled and debated. We hope that there will be no long delay between this and laws to give effect to the ideals. It should happen before another election cycle is upon us.

This supposes that Jamaicans value their democracy, beyond its affordability from a billfold.

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.