Transparency, not more secrecy

The Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) is about to recommend to Parliament that the naming of donors should not be required. This is meant to protect party financiers, the ECJ says, from possible repercussions should their identity be disclosed. A truer statement has never been made! Such legislation would protect party financiers from being fingered for corruption when they receive government contracts or waivers or permits in return for their contributions.

The ECJ is proposing that the names of donors be published only if false declarations are made. And how, pray tell, will it ever be detected that a false declaration has been made if the amount of the donations and the names of the donors are not made public? What is proposed is that political donations be made in secret to a committee set up by the two political parties.

This is similar to anti-corruption legislation where each MP is required to secretly declare personal assets to an entity set up by Parliament, so that an unknown watchdog can compare their assets over time, to detect any unusual increase in wealth which might be due to corruption.

The fact is that no one has ever been prosecuted under this ineffective legislation! Why must we believe that the secret political finance committee will be any different? This is clearly an effort to prevent transparency rather than to promote it.

Party appointees

The ECJ is 100 per cent composed of political party appointees. Some are party members, and some are so-called 'independent' members, i.e., their names have been agreed upon by both parties, not that they necessarily have any thoughts independent of the political parties. In whose interest is the ECJ acting? Whose views do they reflect?

On June 22 last, this newspaper quoted Janet Morrison, head of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) Justice Reform Committee, at a recent Gleaner Editors' Forum: "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."

Morrison added, "They will keep that confidential and they will use that information to monitor political parties." She argued that the PSOJ was concerned that if the names of donors and their amounts were made public, the reputation and image of such contributors might be compromised. These views are identical to those expressed by ECJ chairman, Professor Errol Miller, last week, suggesting that the hand may be the hand of the ECJ, but the voice is that of the PSOJ.

Since then PSOJ president, Joseph Matalon, while not denying that the organisation made the secrecy recommendation, has said that he is not familiar with the concerns of any business owner about being named, and that full disclosure was important to the governance of the country.

Lack of transparency

Politicians are blaming the PSOJ for the lack of transparency in the proposed political party financing legislation, but it is hard to believe that the ECJ is recommending anything contrary to the wishes of the two parties. Neither they nor their private-sector backers want transparency.

The ECJ is also recommending that only persons contributing above $100,000 be required to report to the Secret Committee. A child can see through that one! Contributions will simply be broken down into multiple lumps of $95,000. That recommendation will achieve nothing, and will mean nothing! The ECJ - especially the so-called independent members - should be ashamed to put their names to such useless recommendations.

ECJ member, the naive Dr Herbert Thompson, remarked last week that if the recommendation is accepted by lawmakers, it would be a "milestone for Jamaica when we can monitor the money going into political parties and campaign financing".

Dr Thompson: these proposals will monitor nothing!

The parties and their backers do, however, want the pretence of political finance reform, and we in civil society must ask ourselves whether we are going to let them get away with the lie.

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