Tweet
Money in politics: More action, less talk
published: Sunday | October 22, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody>
Abe Dabdoub, Contributor
Dabdoub
There appears to be some confusion surrounding the reasons for the establishment and functions of the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) (soon to become an Electoral Commission). As one who was intricately involved in advising the then Leader of the Opposition, Edward Seaga, I consider it my duty even for the sake of posterity, to set the record straight.
The EAC came about after the Basil Buck v. Aston King Election Petition in which numerous electoral malpractices were exposed. The decision was taken by both Government and Opposition to remove the electoral system from being manipulated by placing it in the hands of an independent body.
In order to give effect to the agreement between the Govern-ment and Opposition, the EAC was created as an advisory body to the Director of Elections who the act provided for as being the person who would perform the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer. [see Sections 5 and 6 of the Represen-tation of the People (Interim Electoral Reform) Act which came into effect on September 7, 1979]. The Chief Electoral Officer is the person with responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. This person is now Mr. Danville Walker.
Section 7 of the act clearly states that it is the minister who shall be responsible to Parliament for matters concerning the activities of the committee and, accordingly, the committee shall keep the minister fully informed of all such matters, and shall furnish the minister with such information as he may request with respect to any particular matter. The committee was also empowered to, with the approval of the minister, make regulations establishing pension schemes, gratuities and other retiring benefits in relation to employees of the committee, the Director of Elections and the selected members.
Mutual agreement
It was agreed by the then Government and Opposition that EAC recommendations in relation to the carrying out of their functions under the act would be accepted and given legislative effect by the Parliament. Some time later it was agreed that the minister would seek their advice regarding the number of constituencies and their boundaries.
Neither the Constitution of Jamaica, the Representation of the People Act nor the Representation of the People (Interim Electoral Reform) Act speaks to political parties or even acknowledges their existence. It is clear that the question of regulating and controlling the funding of political parties was never an area over which the legal authority of the EAC extended or was intended to extend.
The political parties have been, for many years, primarily concerned with the public funding of election campaigns and elections. I recognise that within the context of the limitations placed on candidates (not political parties) under the Representation of the People Act, the EAC may make recommendations to Parliament through the minister for the amendment or otherwise of provisions under that act. But this is only a small part of what the bill entitled 'The Registration and Funding of Political Parties' seeks to regulate. The bill deals extensively with the transparency and accountability of political parties on a year-to-year basis, in and out of elections, in so far as their receipts and expenditures are concerned.
Regulatory framework
A regulatory framework for the registration and funding of political parties is long overdue. We need more action, less talk.
The Gleaner, in one of its editorials, quite correctly highlights the possibility of narco-money flowing into t
published: Sunday | October 22, 2006 <DIV class=KonaBody>
Abe Dabdoub, Contributor
Dabdoub
There appears to be some confusion surrounding the reasons for the establishment and functions of the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) (soon to become an Electoral Commission). As one who was intricately involved in advising the then Leader of the Opposition, Edward Seaga, I consider it my duty even for the sake of posterity, to set the record straight.
The EAC came about after the Basil Buck v. Aston King Election Petition in which numerous electoral malpractices were exposed. The decision was taken by both Government and Opposition to remove the electoral system from being manipulated by placing it in the hands of an independent body.
In order to give effect to the agreement between the Govern-ment and Opposition, the EAC was created as an advisory body to the Director of Elections who the act provided for as being the person who would perform the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer. [see Sections 5 and 6 of the Represen-tation of the People (Interim Electoral Reform) Act which came into effect on September 7, 1979]. The Chief Electoral Officer is the person with responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. This person is now Mr. Danville Walker.
Section 7 of the act clearly states that it is the minister who shall be responsible to Parliament for matters concerning the activities of the committee and, accordingly, the committee shall keep the minister fully informed of all such matters, and shall furnish the minister with such information as he may request with respect to any particular matter. The committee was also empowered to, with the approval of the minister, make regulations establishing pension schemes, gratuities and other retiring benefits in relation to employees of the committee, the Director of Elections and the selected members.
Mutual agreement
It was agreed by the then Government and Opposition that EAC recommendations in relation to the carrying out of their functions under the act would be accepted and given legislative effect by the Parliament. Some time later it was agreed that the minister would seek their advice regarding the number of constituencies and their boundaries.
Neither the Constitution of Jamaica, the Representation of the People Act nor the Representation of the People (Interim Electoral Reform) Act speaks to political parties or even acknowledges their existence. It is clear that the question of regulating and controlling the funding of political parties was never an area over which the legal authority of the EAC extended or was intended to extend.
The political parties have been, for many years, primarily concerned with the public funding of election campaigns and elections. I recognise that within the context of the limitations placed on candidates (not political parties) under the Representation of the People Act, the EAC may make recommendations to Parliament through the minister for the amendment or otherwise of provisions under that act. But this is only a small part of what the bill entitled 'The Registration and Funding of Political Parties' seeks to regulate. The bill deals extensively with the transparency and accountability of political parties on a year-to-year basis, in and out of elections, in so far as their receipts and expenditures are concerned.
Regulatory framework
A regulatory framework for the registration and funding of political parties is long overdue. We need more action, less talk.
The Gleaner, in one of its editorials, quite correctly highlights the possibility of narco-money flowing into t