Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>At the mercy of influence peddlers</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Dennis Morison
Sunday, November 26, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>It is hard to believe that after the storm surrounding monies received by the PNP from Trafigura that our political parties are going to proceed to another general election without doing any thing about campaign financing.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=70 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Dennis Morison</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Not even the far-reaching step of revealing sensitive bank information and ministerial resignation seemed to have pushed our political leaders to take action to remove the veil of secrecy about this matter.<P class=StoryText align=justify>This means that after three decades of posturing, there is still no intention or motivation to bring transparency to the business of the financing of our political system.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Had the Trafigura affair been motivated by concerns of national interest rather than political advantage, the logic of reform in this area would have been compelling. Regrettably, we may have to wait much longer and encounter many more kafuffles, or worse, damaging, corrupt actions before our politicians are forced to introduce a minimum degree of transparency into the relationship between political parties and large contributors.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In defence of the status quo of dark secrecy we are told by political spokesmen that the large donors do not wish for the public to know their identity, the amounts they contribute to one or other party, or to individual candidates. The impression conveyed is that such information would expose them, presumably in some negative light, or make them vulnerable to some unspecified threat. This kind of explanation does not appear to me to be anything but mumbo jumbo. The integrity of contributions should be secure enough ground to counter any of the presumed negatives of disclosure.<P class=StoryText align=justify>To onlookers outside of Jamaica, secrecy about contributions to politicians has one meaning, that is, it is a way of covering up influence-peddling. And this, to a great extent, explains the low ratings consistently assigned to Jamaica by international groups, especially in the transparency index. In other words, the presumption is that secrecy means cover-up, which equates to corruption.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Implicit in the condemnation of the contribution from Trafigura is the view that only donations from foreign companies are corrosive of our political system. A similar position obtained 20 years ago when the suspicion was that Marc Rich, a fugitive from the US tax authorities, was a large contributor to the then ruling party. It was good to beat upon some foreign interests who it was assumed were passing big bucks to purchase favours. But is there any real basis for attributing more sinister motives to foreigners?<P class=StoryText align=justify>In my estimation, local businesses and individuals have as much to gain, or even more than foreigners from governmental decisions relating to tax or other benefits. Government land or other property, licences, permits, and waivers, are just as important to locals as they are to foreign business people. If influence-peddling is the motivation for donations, we must therefore subject all the givers to the same level of scrutiny. Every Jamaican business has to deal with the government, and other things being equal, stands to gain or lose from governmental decisions. If we need to know what foreigners are contributing, then no less should be required from the loc
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Dennis Morison
Sunday, November 26, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>It is hard to believe that after the storm surrounding monies received by the PNP from Trafigura that our political parties are going to proceed to another general election without doing any thing about campaign financing.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=70 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Dennis Morison</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Not even the far-reaching step of revealing sensitive bank information and ministerial resignation seemed to have pushed our political leaders to take action to remove the veil of secrecy about this matter.<P class=StoryText align=justify>This means that after three decades of posturing, there is still no intention or motivation to bring transparency to the business of the financing of our political system.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Had the Trafigura affair been motivated by concerns of national interest rather than political advantage, the logic of reform in this area would have been compelling. Regrettably, we may have to wait much longer and encounter many more kafuffles, or worse, damaging, corrupt actions before our politicians are forced to introduce a minimum degree of transparency into the relationship between political parties and large contributors.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In defence of the status quo of dark secrecy we are told by political spokesmen that the large donors do not wish for the public to know their identity, the amounts they contribute to one or other party, or to individual candidates. The impression conveyed is that such information would expose them, presumably in some negative light, or make them vulnerable to some unspecified threat. This kind of explanation does not appear to me to be anything but mumbo jumbo. The integrity of contributions should be secure enough ground to counter any of the presumed negatives of disclosure.<P class=StoryText align=justify>To onlookers outside of Jamaica, secrecy about contributions to politicians has one meaning, that is, it is a way of covering up influence-peddling. And this, to a great extent, explains the low ratings consistently assigned to Jamaica by international groups, especially in the transparency index. In other words, the presumption is that secrecy means cover-up, which equates to corruption.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Implicit in the condemnation of the contribution from Trafigura is the view that only donations from foreign companies are corrosive of our political system. A similar position obtained 20 years ago when the suspicion was that Marc Rich, a fugitive from the US tax authorities, was a large contributor to the then ruling party. It was good to beat upon some foreign interests who it was assumed were passing big bucks to purchase favours. But is there any real basis for attributing more sinister motives to foreigners?<P class=StoryText align=justify>In my estimation, local businesses and individuals have as much to gain, or even more than foreigners from governmental decisions relating to tax or other benefits. Government land or other property, licences, permits, and waivers, are just as important to locals as they are to foreign business people. If influence-peddling is the motivation for donations, we must therefore subject all the givers to the same level of scrutiny. Every Jamaican business has to deal with the government, and other things being equal, stands to gain or lose from governmental decisions. If we need to know what foreigners are contributing, then no less should be required from the loc
Comment