Following many years of debate, the Electoral Advisory Commission (EAC) is ready to propose a methodology for electoral contributions and party funding. The fact that both parties pretend that they want an improvement in the process, along with a new level of transparency, flies in the face of the time it has taken to get this far. As you may be aware, the EAC comprises seven members. There are two members from each of the established parties, namely the JLP and the PNP, and three independent members. Taking over four years to get this far does not sound like a commitment to urgency.

Given the high esteem in which the independent members are justifiably held, and the so-called “commitment” of the two major parties, I cannot understand the unacceptable length of time it has taken to resolve this issue. I can only imagine that this speaks to a basic lack of trust between the JLP and PNP, or conclude that neither party wishes to clean up its act. In either case, The motives of both parties must be viewed with a certain amount of scepticism, and the delay may point towards a level of inconsistency between what is said and what is done.

I wish to examine the nature and transparency issues from three different perspectives, as it relates to US benchmarks.

Firstly, within the light of the IFRS accounting standards there seems to be no clear basis for the disclosure of donations for political purposes. Somehow these are lost in the general milieu of expenses, along with normal operating expenses. The IFRS rules would require a disclosure in the notes to the accounts, if this were a significant payment (usually five per cent) of net profit. So in the case of a company with net profits of $1 billion, this would have to exceed $100 million.

In general, these amounts would require some form of disclosure. Consider the many companies who may make large contributions but who have not filed annual returns, or Audited Accounts: the potential for cronyism and corruption is immense. Similarly, payments made to constituency trusts can only be above board if those trusts submit returns themselves. I am still not sure if companies who have no up-to-date accounts can bid on government contracts, and statutory deductions are not the same as total compliance under the relevant Acts and Regulations.

Secondly, within corporate governance, there is an accepted practice for political donations. I researched a few on the Internet and found several companies’ declaration. I chose Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical multinationals, for a closer look. Pfizer has established a Political Action Committee, which ensures that policies pertaining to political contributions are followed. The PAC issues a comprehensive list of donations made to individuals stating the name of the beneficiary, party affiliation, the type of election (municipal, state, or federal).

The list is extremely long and covers Democrats, Republicans and independent candidates. What surprised me in reviewing this long list was the size and range of the contributions. Donations were all within US$100 and US$10,000 — converted to Jamaican dollars, this is roughly between $870 and $870,000. This in no way seems to relate to the demands of our local politicians, but their way offers better transparency to the public and their shareholders.

Currently, good corporate governance and the submission of relevant reports are the practice of only a few companies listed on our stock exchange. From the perspective of a desire to rid ourselves of corruption, we need to extend this to all companies resident here in Jamaica, or doing business through subsidiaries or agents domiciled here. This would include all foreign investors such as hotel owners and operators, bauxite companies, the divested sugar estates, ports and financial institutions.

There is also a requirement by the US Securities Exchange Commission that investment advisors who manage government pension and investment funds declare any financial or personal ties, and this brings the transparency to the level of the individual professional.

Thirdly, for the individual citizen and taxpayer there are also rules under the income tax law requiring disclosure. In the US cash payments made to approved charities under US$250 do not require extensive documentation, and cancelled cheques or written acknowledgement from the approved charity will suffice. Larger donations, whether cash or kind (property, cars, etc), do require specific documentation. Having said that, political parties, individual candidates and political action groups do not qualify as approved charities and are totally excluded from the personal tax relief system.

I have no doubt that other countries have similar regulations which speak to the political process, and the need for transparency. Here in Jamaica there are no registration requirements for political parties, no accounts for public scrutiny, and the parliamentary provisions for individual disclosures are frequently breached. Therefore, it would seem that we have a system that is designed to obscure and deceive, and we pave the way for many politicians to be tempted.

I do not subscribe to a system that is so lax that it may invite otherwise honest persons to yield to temptation. We have at last reached a point of intelligent discussion that can allow us to quickly review and recommend effective mechanisms that can clearly demark the borders between honesty and illegality. Civil society owes just as much to the political process, and I believe that strong intervention will enable a way forward that does not require the politicians to have to be their own policemen.

In finding a common ground, a new system will encourage the entry of good women and men to contest the electoral process undaunted by the current feeling that they may be risking their own integrity. I am hopeful that our individuals and civil society will grasp this opportunity once and for all and give the benefit of their wise counsel to a new process.

To all my fellow citizens, I wish you a happy Emancipation and Independence holiday, and hope that we may yet find a symbolic way to chart a new course that we can be proud of.