EDITORIAL - Run, goat, run! Money is chasing you

Noticing the big crowds at Jamaica's campaign rallies, one Kingston wag remarked last week that were he a goat in this election season, he would have long bolted for the steepest of hills, where even those with the surest of feet would be wary to follow.

His concern was that were he to be accessible, he might become that favourite of Jamaican delicacies, curried goat, which, according to lore, is served in huge quantities by political parties during their campaigns. Curried goat goes with rice, often washed down with a swig of rum.

Of course, curried goat and rice is also a metaphor for inducements offered by the parties to their hard core to remain so, and for the susceptible to display support, if not vote, for them.

Despite what may have happened in the past, it takes a significant amount of cash to satisfy the political multitude as is, in part, reflected in the cost of political campaigns in Jamaica.

Indeed, it is estimated, some say conservatively, that between them, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the People's National Party (PNP) spent J$1.5 billion on the campaign for the 2007 general election. The JLP won narrowly. It is expected that for the December 29 election, their combined expenditure could be up to $2 billion.

This is a lot of money. Given that the PNP and JLP do not operate known profit-making enterprises, they must raise this cash from donors, about whom the public can speculate but will not conclusively know.

There is no law, at present, that commands political parties to declare their donors, although there is agreement for legislation in the future that will bring partial transparency to the process. The pace of this element of the modernisation of Jamaica's political process has been slow.

The parties claim that in a relatively small and politically tribalised society, donors are concerned that identification with a political party will mark them for harassment by supporters of the other, or even victimisation by Government. We believe this concern is overstated.

Transparent donations

That firms and individuals contribute to parties is a legitimate part of the political process, especially if it is done with transparency. The existing opaque arrangement allows for the kind of cosy relationships and quid pro quo between party, government and donors that breeds corruption.

Worse, it is in such murkiness that borderline criminals and outright gangsters thrive and have their greatest opportunity to purchase legislators and to acquire our democracy.

It is the absence of clear regulations and a lack of transparency that allowed the Dutch firm Trafigura, in 2006, to contribute J$31 million, and for a Ponzi scheme operator like David Smith of Olint to give, perhaps, even more to the JLP and the PNP, and which the courts may force them to give back.

Obviously, the law that will require donors beyond a certain threshold to be registered with the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) will not be in place for this vote. It would, however, be a good move, redounding to the benefit of the organisations themselves, and to our democracy, if corporate donors were persuaded by ECJ chairman Professor Errol Miller to "voluntarily choose to disclose their donations".

Jamaicans would be confident that they weren't merely seeking to buy influence.