POLITICAL parties have noble ideals. Ours are a bit tarnished but fresh blood can restore them. You should join one. Why? This is how we form governments, select a prime minister and make big changes. If an MP or minister got and kept his job on merit – performance, qualifications, expertise – I would have no problem with these old fogeys. But they are ineffective and won’t move on. Young people must get involved in politics, compete for office and rekindle the revolution.

There are bad politicians, and some good ones do bad things and I cuss them; not for who they are but for what they do or don’t do and what they have become. That’s why we need a regular turnover of MPs, oversight, audit and sanctions. The late Horace Clarke had an accounting career up to his 40s, then served as MP, minister and left to resume business. RIP, Horace! This is a model. Get in, perform, get out! Once, parties were funded by members’ dues.

Today, government is the key to growth and the party so pivotal it should be run as a company as parties cannot be allowed to fail. Transparency in public life begins with the party. If the party is tainted what comes from it cannot be clean. We rely on the Electoral Commission to be our gatekeeper and it is also imperfect. We must keep them both honest by our vigilance.

Professor Errol Miller and Dr Herbert Thompson of the Electoral Commission are leaders in innovation and we rely on these nation builders of insight and principle. We expect rules for political donations to be settled with the JLP, PNP, big firms, rich people; but most of all what’s best for the nation. Prof, please remind politicians of the visions of their youth and why transformation, transparency and cutting-edge solutions are best. What they approve could be a Kitemark in transparency and anti-corruption or a damp squib. Dr Thompson’s “You know the country we are living in” speech is redolent of all our fears. Will the Electoral Commission shift the paradigm or pander to the base instincts? Sirs, we know the country we live in very well – vide the last 10 months – we don’t like what’s going on, we wish to change and you have power to change this one thing! You, Sirs, can begin transformation at the headwaters of politics – the party. They want latitude to manoeuvre, we want tight controls. Only one can prevail. You gentlemen are our last best hope – it’s your call!

Dickie Crawford’s “donors cannot be accused of being PNP or JLP supporters” point is valid; but not now. We must claim the freedom to be openly PNP or JLP! Do you notice that the men and women in green and orange in public are from the top and bottom of society? The middle and working classes who keep the country going and pay taxes are absent! Why? Do they vote? Want to celebrate? Yes! Why do Americans put party stickers on their cars and houses and we don’t? And why do the British wear their red and blue rosettes proudly? Because their systems validate open support for parties. Ours do not! We are afraid! If I am assaulted for wearing a green or orange shirt, you say it’s my fault for wearing it! Are we free? The Electoral Commission can begin this process of validation. Please proffer solutions which nudge politicians to put our welfare above theirs and enure to greater freedom of expression. The Electoral Commission’s proposal for party donations does not pass the stress test of transparency and will not do the job. Think on the following points:

*The base line of transparency is public involvement. The know-how on this issue here and in the diaspora is massive as many are involved in politics abroad. The Electoral Commission told us the opinions of the JLP, PNP and the rich. Did they ask the opinion of the other two million citizens? Or tap diaspora expertise? It’s our money! We are the donors, so why exclude our opinions? Does the Electoral Commission know what those of us who think, think?

*The cap of 2.5 per cent of budget is flawed. The parties and candidates will inflate their budgets to fit the largest donation. Any percentage is a loophole they can exploit!

*The JLP, PNP and “financiers” agree on secrecy. What an unholy trinity! Does the Electoral Commission know this is the precise link we are trying to sever? A link which harms transparency, our democracy and is repugnant to us. Sirs, you told us JLP, PNP and rich people want secrecy…we know this long, long time! We read the contractor general’s reports!

Please consider the following ideas on party funding:

(1) Party institutional memory. We recruit councillors, MPs and a PM through parties. The state should fund core record management to ensure best practice, secrecy, etc, of these national bodies. All papers to be sealed, stored, but remain in the party’s control until the release date. Or, give UWI custody and accesss so scholars can use them.

(2) Candidate’s campaign. Set a spending cap of $2m on an MP’s, $1m on a councillor’s campaign – adjusted for inflation. A rich candidate with big outside connections must have no advantage over a poor one. The aim is to be connected within the constituency by small donors, reaching minds and hearts. Many donors mean many votes – true democracy!

(3) Party’s campaign. Set a spending cap for party HQ at $3m per candidate in 2012 – $180m for 60 candidates – adjusted for inflation. Other major principles are:

No government company, agency or body receiving state or foreign grants or aid can donate. Trade unions, professional bodies, etc, which charge dues must declare donations to their members. Only registered voters, local firms and bodies can make a recordable donation; this is $5,000 upwards. Anyone can buy tickets to dinners, fetes, etc.

Donations also have the following two dimensions:

(a) Cash: The cap on a donation is $100,000 per donor. Sums from $5,000 up are recorded and should be taxdeductible. Cash raised in dinners, fetes, etc, must be listed by event.

(b) Non-cash: major donations in kind to be recorded and valued, using a set Electoral Commission scale, for example, use of car at $10 per day. There is no limit on volunteer time. Professional time is costed using the Electoral Commission scale, for example, consultant at $20 per hour. The Electoral Commission scale is adjusted for inflation. Identities of donors must be vaulted by the contractor general as his office uses the data to correlate donors with government contracts. Someone needs to keep tabs on this index.

Party accounts must be done by audit firms and MP and councillor account under oath. The Electoral Commission must do donation trend analyses to identify abuse and take corrective action. These measures will level the playing field between all who vie for office — rich or poor, promote transparency and bring good young people into politics. Please note on this issue both JLP and PNP are adversaries of the citizen. They want loose regulation and a lot of “wiggle room”.

We want high standards and tough sanctions.What the Electoral Commission decides is important to our future. Stay conscious, my friend!

Dr Franklin Johnston is an international project manager with Teape-Johnston Consultants currently on assignment in the UK. franklinjohnston@hotmail.com