AS a first time candidate in the General Election of 1993 I gained valuable insights into the workings of the political system in Jamaica and saw up-close the threats to our democratic system of governance. I expressed my concerns publicly during the parliamentary debates of 1996 when I called for the establishment of a Joint Select Committee of Parliament to examine the question of state funding for political parties and candidates.

My concern at that time was centered on what I saw as the urgent need for reform of a political culture that placed little or no value on the competition of ideas in the campaign, but instead placed a premium on the amount of cash available for handouts, disinformation bordering on slander and the creation generally of the conditions for partisan confrontation and violence. This condition was aptly described by Prime Minister Patterson who likened it to a “fight by warring tribes in a struggle for scarce benefits”. I formed the view then that there was an urgent need for sensible regulation of political parties and of candidates in election campaigns, beyond that which presently exists under the Representation of the Peoples Act. Specifically, what is being proposed is a requirement for the full disclosure of the sources and means of funding for parties and candidates as well as limits on contributions and spending.

I also formed the firm view that the bedrock principle of one-man-one-vote underlining our democracy was in jeopardy from undue reliance on and influence by special interest groupings threatening to further undermine the democratic system. Ironically, the government with the urging of the Opposition and civil society has already expended hundreds of millions of dollars in order to procure and invigilate a state-of-the-art technology based system to ensure a clean voters list and a tamper proof voter identification system … all in an attempt to preserve the sanctity of the one-man-one-vote principle, and by so doing engender confidence in the democratic process. We must therefore take further action to safeguard this principle from the undue influence of monied interests and to exclude under the threat of further sanction “tainted money” from the political process by regulating the funding of political parties and candidates and thereby justify the significant investment of resources in the process already.

Since the 1993 election I have participated in four other elections and if anything my concerns have been heightened not lessened. I have witnessed an exponential rise in the costs of participating in these elections with each one more costly than the previous one. The rising costs have increased the pressures for raising funds and with it an increase in the anecdotal rumblings about questionable sources of financing. This has led me and others to reflect seriously on our continued participation in the electoral process. Personally, I have resolved to add my voice to those seeking to transform the current political culture. However, I remain concerned about the prospects of new blood and fresh ideas entering a process where increasingly only the well heeled or well “connected” can contemplate such a prospect or afford to participate beyond a certain level.

But, my greatest concern then was for what I perceived to be a clear and present danger to our democratic way of life posed by “tainted money” about which there has been audible grumbling on the ground in the constituencies. We have seen first hand the corrosive consequences for the democratic process and the rule of law being played out in neighbouring countries in Latin America. I am therefore not surprised, for more reasons than one, by the recent charges by the Opposition Leader of “tainted money” deciding the outcome of at least one race for Deputy Leadership in his Party. This latest event has sparked renewed debate within the country on this very critical issue that threatens to undermine the democratic process and can no longer be ignored.

THE IMPERATIVES OF GLOBALISATION

The initial concerns giving rise to the call for public funding of political parties and candidates have been further deepened by the increasing demands on the society and by extension on political parties and the government by globalisation. The introduction of new issues to an already complex and challenging environment by a globalising world require new policies and approaches in search of practical answers to very complex issues. The call for improved governance and the greater awareness of civil society brought about by increased information flows have given rise to an explosion of civil society organisations and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s). These civil society organisations and NGOs focused as they are on single issues have increased the pressure on the government bureaucracy requiring greater clarity and precision in the policy-making process as well as greater involvement in those decisions affecting peoples lives.

The requirement of good governance symbolized by a transparent and inclusive policy-making process is not without its implications for the political process as political parties must now deepen their capabilities in the policy-making process if they are to lead the debates on key development issues and to partner with civil society in the quest for real answers to national development challenges. The imperative of sound policy based on research and analysis as the means for engaging civil society in the policy making process, has imposed increased costs on political parties which are forced to modernise their organisations and to become more professional in their operations in order to maintain leadership in these debates.

The changes currently underway in both political parties cannot simply be about changes in personnel but must be cognizant of the imperatives of deepening the quality of the dialogue with civil society and lifting the level of constructive debate in the country. This provides an opportunity for all of us to transform the political culture away from the “curry goat” politics to a more enlightened politics supportive of the sustained development of our country. But this process requires nurturing and support, in part, through funding by the state in order to modernize as well as to make more professional political parties and to reduce the undue influence of monied interests, as well as to exclude the corrupting influence of “tainted money”.

While globalisation is essentially concerned with the free movement of goods and services across national borders, we cannot continue to ignore the heightened risk of illicit drugs moving through and across our borders. Already there have been allegations of members of our security forces providing protection for the safe passage of drugs through our borders. The risk of contamination of our political process is so great as to warrant preventive if not corrective action.

FUNDING OF CIVIL SOCIETY vs FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

The call for state funding to support this transformation process in return for reasonable regulation of political parties and candidates is even more compelling when viewed against the backdrop of increased funding going to civil society organizations by the donor community and from other sources, including the Jamaican State. For example, the recent negotiations between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of States and the European Union (EU) giving rise to the Cotonou Agreement, introduced new and innovative mechanisms for funding of NGOs and civil society organisations.

Recently, eligibility guidelines for the participation of NGOs and civil society organizations under Cotonou were proposed and discussed at a seminar held here in Jamaica. It was confirmed at that seminar that political parties were not eligible for funding by the EU under this new dispensation. We see, therefore, the prospect of increased funding for NGOs and civil society organisations from numerous sources including by the Jamaican State under current practices and the continued exclusion from funding of political parties. Should this trend continue, whereby state funding coupled with funding from the donor community is available to NGO’s and civil society organizations while ignoring the legitimate need for funding by political parties, this would only lead to a further widening of the resource gap with its consequences for the political process.

To be sure funding for civil society organizations should be supported in the interest of deepening the democratic process, but similarly the broadly regulated activities of political parties must also be supported and funded. The question of whether and how civil society organizations themselves are regulated is left for another time.

METHODS AND MEANS

OF FINANCING

Assuming that the necessity of considering state funding for political parties at this time is appreciated by all sides, what therefore is the method and means of providing such funding? Since the current Constitution does not recognize the role or function of political parties in the democratic process, there is the need to add this issue to the already extensive package of issues to be addressed in the Constitutional reform process. In the meantime, we must act through the legislative process. In this regard, Senator Dr Trevor Munroe has already called for the establishment of a Commission to consider the matter, and in recent weeks the Leader of the Opposition has proposed and the Prime Minister has accepted his request to examine on a bi-partisan basis the issue of state funding. Not to be excluded from this process is the institutional role of the independent Electoral Advisory Committee. So too the role of civil society organizations and individuals. It is clear, therefore, that whatever form this process ultimately takes the cast of characters has already been identified.

It is also the case that there exist a plethora of information from different countries and localities on the many approaches that are being taken on the matter of state funding for political parties. Like Opposition member Delroy Chuck, I too am in favour of the approach offered by the German model. Broadly speaking, this model seeks to finance those party activities aimed at strengthening the policy-making role of the parties eligible for funding, thereby improving the quality of dialogue and debate in the country and ensuring that politics is essentially a competition of ideas enriching the democratic process.

Along with the different models and approaches by States to regulate and finance party political activities are the several sources of financing such undertakings by the State. If the undertakings are phased, as I believe they should be, considering the state of the Government’s fiscal budget, there may not be the need for any onerous new taxes. Indeed, the sources of financing in countries and localities where the state regulates and finances political parties have varied widely to include voluntary contributions by the citizenry in support of a better democratic process, supplemented by the proceeds from unclaimed property administered by the State eg bank accounts which escheats to the State, or as is more likely, the offering of tax credits to individuals or companies contributing to an electoral fund.

Whatever the approach settled on for financing the democratic process it is clear that innovation must be the watchword if we are not to further burden the taxpayer. Equally clear, however, is the fact that there is an urgent need to act in a holistic manner in order to safeguard the integrity of the democratic process and thereby ensure that the voices of all our people are heard, remembering the truism that “he who pays the piper, calls the tune”!!!