EDITORIAL - A fine stand for transparency

That five firms were apparently persuaded by Professor Errol Miller's suggestion of a voluntary disclosure of their financial contributions to the political parties is a profoundly historic development, for which their leadership deserves high commendation.

For not only have the actions of these companies - ICD Group, Scotia Group Jamaica, Sagicor Life Jamaica Group, GraceKennedy, JMMB Group - gone further than proposed legislation on transparency in the funding of the parties, it could well prove a catalyst for disclosures by others.

There is little doubt that political parties are important and inevitable components of the modern democratic process. They allow the organisational coalescence of people of common philosophies, ideals, policies and programmes for the management of a society and those wishing to contest for state power to implement their ideas.

Campaign costs

We appreciate, too, that the general maintenance of a political organisation comes at a cost that rises exponentially during election campaigns. Neither the Jamaica Labour Party's (JLP) nor the People's National Party's (PNP) is likely to be cheap, and will be made more expensive by the many superfluous undertakings that are part of electioneering in Jamaica.

Indeed, it is conservatively estimated that, combined, it cost the JLP and the PNP about J$1.5 billion to finance their election campaigns of four years ago. For this election, that figure may have risen by at least $500 million. The fact is that few persons, and certainly no one outside the inner core of the parties, really know what they spend on their campaigns, for they are not required to tell. Nor are they required to say who helps to pay the bills.

Moreover, even when the parties volunteer information, in a supposedly high-minded commitment to transparency, such as in the publication in recent times of their operational accounts, these appear to understate normal operational expenditure and income. Yet, the financial transparency of the political process is important to the integrity of Jamaica's democracy.

Influence of donations

First, this newspaper believes that it is a right of individuals and corporations to make financial donations to political parties, or to the party whose policies they feel will best advance the interests of the country. Given the opaque environment within which these contributions are now made, the public has no way of determining whether these are on the basis of quid pro quo and, therefore, whether the policies and actions of a government are disproportionately skewed to a favoured donor.

Worse, it has the potential of facilitating the infusion of dirty money into the political process and for those whose businesses are outside the realm of legitimacy to buy their way to influence and power, to the detriment to the security of the State.

The proposal by the Electoral Commission of Jamaica, chaired by Professor Miller, for donations of a certain threshold to be registered with the commission, would be a good start, which we hope will quickly move to full transparency. For we believe that the fear of stigmatisation and victimisation of donors is overstated, which, hopefully, the actions of the firms will help to dispel.

In any event, we do not believe that the same concerns and standards should apply to public companies. They must be accountable to all shareholders. As such, political contributions should be made a specific line item in their accounts, enforced, for listed companies, by the Jamaica Stock Exchange.