Tweet
Defending integrity
HOWARD GREGORY
Sunday, September 12, 2010
IT seems to me almost a truism to state that there are two public institutions which have become the symbols of the struggle of the nation to preserve a modicum of integrity in its national life, namely the Office of the Contractor General under the leadership of Mr Greg Christie, and the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ).
The Office of the Contractor General has now made it clear that no one is above the law and accountability when it comes to the handling of public funds and the award of contracts, the violation of which has been a long-standing avenue for corruption and pork-barrel politics within our political system. The offence which this office has generated on both sides of the political divide in this country suggests that the politicians who formulated and approved the relevant legislation to bring this office into being were naïve to what this involved, were hoodwinked by someone or some force into supporting it, or simply assumed that this would just be another piece of legislation which would be passed but not implemented with any measure of effectiveness.
Similarly, the Electoral Commission has been able to provide for this country a world-class electoral machinery, so much so that its officials and model have been sought by overseas nations in the conduct of their elections.
The development of these institutions has come about because of public outcry about the need to correct long-standing violations and injustices within the life of the nation. The reputation of politicians was taking a beating as citizens became turned off from active participation in the political process. That resulted from their witnessing the corruption and lack of accountability in the handling of public funds, and also in the kind of manipulation that took place by political parties with the gerrymandering of constituency boundaries and the irregularities which were evident in polling divisions on election day.
It is this public dissatisfaction which led to the positive outcome which these two institutions represent. What this must say to us is that the people of this country have power to shape the actions of government where consistent and collective pressure is applied. We certainly have the events of recent months which began with the Christopher 'Dudus' Coke affair as evidence of this fact. It also says that it is possible to get both sides of the political divide to work together for the good of the country when the stakes are sufficiently high, and hence the consensus on issues before the Election Commission which have been settled over the years and given us a commission of which we can be proud.
In recent weeks the two institutions have figured prominently in the public media as parallel stories, and yet, we may not have noted the connection between the two bodies in relation to issues of current public concern. At the moment there are a number of issues which are before the Courts or awaiting a judicial ruling which have come out of investigations by Contractor General Christie, and which affect several leading figures in the political leadership of the country on both sides of the House, all indicating evidence of corruption.
There are also issues which relate to persons and institutions beyond the mere identification of political leaders. It is no secret that the culture of corruption thrives not just on the greed of politicians but on the patronage of those who fund the activities of political parties and who expect to have policies and projects inclined in their favour. We do not have the culture of transparency which, up to this point, allows us to see who are the individuals and institutions who are most effective in lobbying the Government and influencing policies as we see in evidence in the United States of America, such as the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies.
However, we fool ourselves if we do not believe that there are such powerful influences in this country. Indeed, in many cases, it has not been powerful companies but powerful individuals and families who have traditionally determined the direction of this country and the policies which are pursued by any incumbent government. In the not-so-subtle strategy of some families, they are divided in loyalty between the two major political parties, and so ensure that they are always in power.
In this kind of scenario it would be naïve to think that the corruption which besets the society is restricted to the awarding of contracts. It has to do with who sits on major boards of public institutions, and whose child or family member gets into significant posts in the government service or the diplomatic service. The operation of this dynamic is more subtle and may not fall within the kind of categories easily investigated by the contractor general. This, I suggest, is where the ECJ comes into the picture.
The commission has a fundamental responsibility to protect the franchise of each Jamaican and the maintenance of an electoral system which guarantees the right of every Jamaican in the exercise of the same. At the same time, I believe that it also has a right to monitor those activities of individuals or institutions which are designed to manipulate the system or to have undue influence on the electoral outcome beyond the exercise of their legitimate individual vote. The funding of political parties is one such activity.
In this regard I welcome the announcement by the ECJ chairman, Professor Errol Miller, that the commission is to start "an active process to flesh out legislation aimed at governing campaign financing" and that this would involve the solicitation of submissions by individuals and groups within the society, especially representative groups such as non-governmental organisations, trade unions, and major donors to political parties.
Addressing a recent press conference with the selected members of the commission present, Professor Miller argued that there was legitimate fear among donors, not just in Jamaica but in other countries, of being identified because of likely repercussions. "We mulled over this process for a long time and we thought that going the route of limited instead of full disclosure was the way to go at this time," he said.
While I understand the fear which donors may have with the disclosure of their identities, I do not believe that this should be the major consideration in determining the shape of the final bit of legislation in supporting limited disclosure. I believe that there should be a gradated system of permissible contributions. First, there should be a basic limit to the amount which any single individual can contribute to a political party, which amount may even be tax-deductible to the individual, thereby not only inviting participation in the political process but also giving the activity a measure of openness and integrity. What that amount should be would be determined by the commission.
Beyond that basic permissible level, individuals and institutions may be allowed to contribute within a predetermined second band which would be determined from time to time by the commission but would be of a level that could not be regarded as wielding much clout with any party, such as a sum not exceeding $100,000. Such donations should be reported to the commission and may be exempted from taxation.
A third level should include all contributions beyond this second band and should be restrained by an upper limit band and should be reported to the commission, failure of which should be a criminal offence. While tax concessions may be considered, I believe that there should be some clear limits to the scope of such concessions.
While I have great respect for the commission and the work it has done, I believe that the culture of suspicion which we have generated in this country would only be enhanced by the notion of disclosure of political contribution being restricted to the membership of the commission or even the creation of another Integrity Commission for that matter.
The concession which I would be prepared to make is that, using the kind of framework which I have proposed, all contributions at the higher band should be open to disclosure in a qualified manner. This would involve releasing the identity of the contributing entity and the party to which the contribution was made, stating only the band within which it falls and not the amount.
While full disclosure is seemingly being shunted as an option, I would not rule it out. I believe that the political culture of the nation must continue to grow and to mature and this must involve the ability to respect persons' political opinions but also to hold political representatives accountable. If full disclosure of political contributions should become a reality, contributors will think long and hard before making contributions and will perhaps demand better performance from those whom they support so that their institution may be identified with performers who act with efficiency and accountability to the electorate.
I do not know that donors would want to be identified publicly with losers. So, perhaps in the era of Greg Christie and the ECJ, what potential donors to political parties need to fear is not reprisals from the public, but being discredited by backing non-performers and losers who fail to deliver what they promise with such profound expressions of seeming sincerity every five years in their manifestos.
— Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...egrity_7941871
HOWARD GREGORY
Sunday, September 12, 2010IT seems to me almost a truism to state that there are two public institutions which have become the symbols of the struggle of the nation to preserve a modicum of integrity in its national life, namely the Office of the Contractor General under the leadership of Mr Greg Christie, and the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ).
The Office of the Contractor General has now made it clear that no one is above the law and accountability when it comes to the handling of public funds and the award of contracts, the violation of which has been a long-standing avenue for corruption and pork-barrel politics within our political system. The offence which this office has generated on both sides of the political divide in this country suggests that the politicians who formulated and approved the relevant legislation to bring this office into being were naïve to what this involved, were hoodwinked by someone or some force into supporting it, or simply assumed that this would just be another piece of legislation which would be passed but not implemented with any measure of effectiveness.
Similarly, the Electoral Commission has been able to provide for this country a world-class electoral machinery, so much so that its officials and model have been sought by overseas nations in the conduct of their elections.
The development of these institutions has come about because of public outcry about the need to correct long-standing violations and injustices within the life of the nation. The reputation of politicians was taking a beating as citizens became turned off from active participation in the political process. That resulted from their witnessing the corruption and lack of accountability in the handling of public funds, and also in the kind of manipulation that took place by political parties with the gerrymandering of constituency boundaries and the irregularities which were evident in polling divisions on election day.
It is this public dissatisfaction which led to the positive outcome which these two institutions represent. What this must say to us is that the people of this country have power to shape the actions of government where consistent and collective pressure is applied. We certainly have the events of recent months which began with the Christopher 'Dudus' Coke affair as evidence of this fact. It also says that it is possible to get both sides of the political divide to work together for the good of the country when the stakes are sufficiently high, and hence the consensus on issues before the Election Commission which have been settled over the years and given us a commission of which we can be proud.
In recent weeks the two institutions have figured prominently in the public media as parallel stories, and yet, we may not have noted the connection between the two bodies in relation to issues of current public concern. At the moment there are a number of issues which are before the Courts or awaiting a judicial ruling which have come out of investigations by Contractor General Christie, and which affect several leading figures in the political leadership of the country on both sides of the House, all indicating evidence of corruption.
There are also issues which relate to persons and institutions beyond the mere identification of political leaders. It is no secret that the culture of corruption thrives not just on the greed of politicians but on the patronage of those who fund the activities of political parties and who expect to have policies and projects inclined in their favour. We do not have the culture of transparency which, up to this point, allows us to see who are the individuals and institutions who are most effective in lobbying the Government and influencing policies as we see in evidence in the United States of America, such as the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies.
However, we fool ourselves if we do not believe that there are such powerful influences in this country. Indeed, in many cases, it has not been powerful companies but powerful individuals and families who have traditionally determined the direction of this country and the policies which are pursued by any incumbent government. In the not-so-subtle strategy of some families, they are divided in loyalty between the two major political parties, and so ensure that they are always in power.
In this kind of scenario it would be naïve to think that the corruption which besets the society is restricted to the awarding of contracts. It has to do with who sits on major boards of public institutions, and whose child or family member gets into significant posts in the government service or the diplomatic service. The operation of this dynamic is more subtle and may not fall within the kind of categories easily investigated by the contractor general. This, I suggest, is where the ECJ comes into the picture.
The commission has a fundamental responsibility to protect the franchise of each Jamaican and the maintenance of an electoral system which guarantees the right of every Jamaican in the exercise of the same. At the same time, I believe that it also has a right to monitor those activities of individuals or institutions which are designed to manipulate the system or to have undue influence on the electoral outcome beyond the exercise of their legitimate individual vote. The funding of political parties is one such activity.
In this regard I welcome the announcement by the ECJ chairman, Professor Errol Miller, that the commission is to start "an active process to flesh out legislation aimed at governing campaign financing" and that this would involve the solicitation of submissions by individuals and groups within the society, especially representative groups such as non-governmental organisations, trade unions, and major donors to political parties.
Addressing a recent press conference with the selected members of the commission present, Professor Miller argued that there was legitimate fear among donors, not just in Jamaica but in other countries, of being identified because of likely repercussions. "We mulled over this process for a long time and we thought that going the route of limited instead of full disclosure was the way to go at this time," he said.
While I understand the fear which donors may have with the disclosure of their identities, I do not believe that this should be the major consideration in determining the shape of the final bit of legislation in supporting limited disclosure. I believe that there should be a gradated system of permissible contributions. First, there should be a basic limit to the amount which any single individual can contribute to a political party, which amount may even be tax-deductible to the individual, thereby not only inviting participation in the political process but also giving the activity a measure of openness and integrity. What that amount should be would be determined by the commission.
Beyond that basic permissible level, individuals and institutions may be allowed to contribute within a predetermined second band which would be determined from time to time by the commission but would be of a level that could not be regarded as wielding much clout with any party, such as a sum not exceeding $100,000. Such donations should be reported to the commission and may be exempted from taxation.
A third level should include all contributions beyond this second band and should be restrained by an upper limit band and should be reported to the commission, failure of which should be a criminal offence. While tax concessions may be considered, I believe that there should be some clear limits to the scope of such concessions.
While I have great respect for the commission and the work it has done, I believe that the culture of suspicion which we have generated in this country would only be enhanced by the notion of disclosure of political contribution being restricted to the membership of the commission or even the creation of another Integrity Commission for that matter.
The concession which I would be prepared to make is that, using the kind of framework which I have proposed, all contributions at the higher band should be open to disclosure in a qualified manner. This would involve releasing the identity of the contributing entity and the party to which the contribution was made, stating only the band within which it falls and not the amount.
While full disclosure is seemingly being shunted as an option, I would not rule it out. I believe that the political culture of the nation must continue to grow and to mature and this must involve the ability to respect persons' political opinions but also to hold political representatives accountable. If full disclosure of political contributions should become a reality, contributors will think long and hard before making contributions and will perhaps demand better performance from those whom they support so that their institution may be identified with performers who act with efficiency and accountability to the electorate.
I do not know that donors would want to be identified publicly with losers. So, perhaps in the era of Greg Christie and the ECJ, what potential donors to political parties need to fear is not reprisals from the public, but being discredited by backing non-performers and losers who fail to deliver what they promise with such profound expressions of seeming sincerity every five years in their manifestos.
— Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...egrity_7941871