I take Raymond Pryce at his word. “My intention is to promote true democracy, transparency and accountability.” That’s what he told me in a telephone interview on Thursday when he explained his thinking behind the draft resolution he tabled in Parliament last Tuesday which was not intended to hobble civil society groups but to strengthen democratic governance.

Mr Pryce, a first-time Member of Parliament for the governing People’s National Party (PNP), is asking the House to debate “the appropriateness and need for legislation” in Jamaica that will require civil society, special interest and lobby groups “to vouchsafe and protect Jamaica’s democracy” by ensuring that they are not compromised “by unknown or tainted sources of funds or hidden agendas”.

In the preamble to the resolution, he acknowledged that “Jamaica’s vibrant democracy depends on an active role for civil society” and alerted us to the threats to democracies from “the undue influence of lobby groups acting on the behest of unknown funders with unspecified agendas”.

Mr Pryce said his proposal was in keeping with “best practice” among the European Community countries, the United States, Norway and Singapore among others — countries that many Jamaicans “love to love”.

It was “becoming normal” in these jurisdictions to have legislation mandating civil society groups and other special interest groups or lobbyists to “be registered and to publish certified and audited financial statements”.

Of course, he’s right that these things are happening in many parts of the world and I support registration, financial accountability and transparency for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs), especially where much of their work is about holding governments and public officials accountable to the law and treaty obligations.

Indeed, the well-known Jamaican CSOs already exceed the minimum requirements that Member of Parliament Pryce proposes. Without that they could not access international donor funds.

As Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) Executive Director Dr Carolyn commented, “Our sources of financing are well known. They are provided publicly every time we have an annual general meeting and we have one every year.”

So why has there been such negative reaction from CSOs like JFJ and the Jamaica Civil Society Coalition? The answer includes timing, context and lack of trust, one of the few commodities in oversupply in Jamaica.

Mr Pryce expressed surprise at the reaction. He shouldn’t be. Suspicions arose because his proposal came in the wake of the controversy between JFJ and Minister of Youth and Culture Lisa Hanna, who took offence to a campaign organised by the human-rights lobby group to draw international attention to Jamaica’s treatment of children who come in conflict with the law.

Ms Hanna bristled at the content of the campaign, accusing the lobby group of engaging in “tactics” that were “disingenuous, dishonest, dangerous and clearly designed to damage the reputation of this country”.

Further, she said the JFJ petition was now with the Attorney General’s Department (AGD) for review for possible “sanctions”.

Mr Pryce assured that his proposal came out of discussions at meeting of Commonwealth parliamentarians in London in June and was unrelated to Ms Hanna’s search for “sanctions”.

Then again, the St Elizabeth MP did not lay a factual basis for suggesting that“unknown or tainted sources of funds or hidden agendas” by CSOs was a current or potential threat to our democracy. So what is the mischief that Parliament is being asked to address?

Re-setting the accountability agenda

Mr Pryce’s proposal got off on the wrong foot, but we have a chance to re-set the accountability agenda, starting with the parliamentary debate, expected this week, on the draft resolution.

Mr Pryce, and government members in particular, can state categorically that the government has no wish to silence or sideline CSOs, critics or opposition to its policies; rather they recognise and welcome such criticism as necessary to a healthy democracy.

Secondly, the Portia Simpson Miller administration needs to make it clear that they support an enabling environment in which civil society organisations can do their work effectively without political hurdles.

According to the South Africanbased World Alliance for Citizen Participation, a global grouping of CSOs dedicated to empowering citizens, an enabling environment requires action both by the state and CSOs.

The state must ensure that a country’s laws, regulations and policies are “consistent with globally endorsed human rights standards”. The five minimal requirements are showing respect for human rights obligations; recognising CSOs as actors in their own right; committing to open political and policy dialogue; committing to accountability and transparency, enabling financing of CSOs.

On the other hand, CSOs must themselves “take internal steps” to improve their legitimacy, transparency and accountability to their stakeholders “particularly those in whose interest they claim to act”.

Third, the resolution must draw a distinction between CSOs defending citizen rights and interest and lobby groups that seek to use money and other levers to influence government policies and actions that benefit them directly and hurt the public interest.

There is now a major push in the United Kingdom, for instance, to rein in lobbyists in light of revelations of sleazy relationships between some politicians and lobbyists to the detriment of the public interest of the British people.

In our context, campaign finance reform, including naming donors and the amounts donated, has been too long in the making. This is the most urgent reform on our calendar.

Fourth, the administration needs to set out clearly a process for taking Mr Pryce’s resolution forward, assuming it is adopted.

The routine in such matters is for parliament to transmit the adopted resolution to the Cabinet Secretary. In the fullness of time, it gets on the Cabinet agenda; if it gets Cabinet support, instructions are issued for a draft bill to be produced for subsequent debate. That could take months, maybe years.

If it gets to that stage then all citizens, but especially media and civil society organisations, must ensure that any new legislative or regulatory framework is supportive of transparency and not restrictive of freedom. The legislative process cannot be rushed without adequate time for public comment.

Modern society is in a state of tension between the government, the market and the citizen, and the outcome is uncertain.

Globally, citizen frustration is evident in the near reversal of the so-called Arab Spring; it’s in the anger from the ’99 percenters’ in the United States whose share of American prosperity declines as that of the ‘one percenters’ rises to unprecedented levels; Greece is only an extreme example of the insecurity of the middle class in Europe and North America; it’s evident among Brazilians complaining that their government is spending far too much on the World Cup and the Olympics when the poor remain marginalised; it’s evident in the high level of corruption and low levels of trust in major public institutions.

In Jamaica, it is evident in the growing anger over hardships occasioned by the economic constraints.

Against that background, civil society organisations are not the problem; they are part of a solution that demands that the government, the market and the citizen listen-really listen-to each other with respect and humility.

kcr@cwjamaica.com