EDITORIAL - For transparency in political parties

In an op-ed piece published in yesterday's edition of this newspaper, José Miguel Insulza, the secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS), discussed a topic that has been the subject of substantial, if spasmodic, debate in Jamaica but, unfortunately, has not generated concrete action.

Based on Mr Insulza's observations, though, Jamaica, in that regard, is not unique in the Caribbean. Everyone likes to debate the financing of elections during national political campaigns, only to have the matter hibernate thereafter. Part of the price of this failure: the diminished reputation of politics and those who practise it.

The fact is, the absence of legislation covering campaign financing and, more broadly, the funding of political parties, opens the gate to persons willing to, and capable of, buying their way, by proxy, to political power. Conversely, it facilitates those in politics who would be corrupt.

As Mr Insulza concluded in his article: "If left unattended, this issue will continue to erode the credibility of elections (in the Caribbean) and the political parties that compete in them."

Four-year slow march

In many respects, Jamaica, notwithstanding its four-year slow march towards the objective, is further along the road of campaign and party financing than most of its Caribbean neighbours. Our leaders, however, have not yet mustered the courage to scale the legislative hurdle.

Hopefully, though, the Kingston meeting - combined with the revival of the Trafigura scandal and the ongoing 'Dudus' Coke/Manatt saga - will prove a catalyst for moving forward with the law, the parameters of which are already agreed by the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) and the parties. We hope, though, that the environment of the OAS/ECJ conference will cause these parameters to stretch.

In this regard, we believe that Jamaican political parties should not only be required to file contributions with the ECJ, but make these known to the public. Greater transparency will enhance the ability of voters to make judgements about in whose interest policy initiatives may be directed, without there first having to be a scandal.

The murkiness and suspicion surrounding Trafigura, for instance, might have been avoided, or lessened, if Jamaica, in 2006, had transparent party financing regulation. It would not have required a leak from a private bank account for the public to know that Trafigura Beheer, a Dutch commodity trader that did business with Jamaica, had made a $31 million 'donation' to the then ruling People's National Party, hidden as payment for services to a supposedly private contractor. The questions linger over what Trafigura got for their money

.

Policy question

Nor do we believe that the Jamaican government's long intransigence over the extradition of Coke, the west Kingston 'don' who was close to the ruling Jamaica Labour Party, to be unrelated, as a policy question, to party and campaign financing.

We do not claim this to be the case with regard to Coke, but persons with substantial resources, not always legally secured, can, in the absence of reporting requirements, finance central and parliamentary parties and their candidates, thereby gaining substantial influence in the formal halls of power.

At the bottom line, political parties, having provided the platforms for persons seeking state power and great control over the lives and resources of the citizenry, cannot presume themselves to be private clubs. They have to open themselves, and their books, to public scrutiny.