Tweet
The best election money can buy
Henley Morgan
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Is money a motivator? My friend and I were locked in a debate over this perennial and emotive issue. A pragmatist, my friend sees everything in black and white. To him it's "give me enough money and I will give you all the motivation you need".
Realising that I was getting nowhere with him, I pleaded in exasperation, "Surely, there are some things money can't buy." Showing no sympathy for me or my point of view, he put me against the ropes. "Name me one."
The idealist that I am, I shot back, "Love." That's when he moved in for the kill. "Drive by the corner of Ruthven Road and Trafalgar Road (where the prostitutes hang out) after dark and tell me what you call that." Under pressure and with growing indignation, I refused to throw in the towel just yet. "That's not love. That's sex." It was at that point that my friend made the most profound of observations. "What does it matter? Money will buy such a good pretence at love. It is impossible to tell the difference between it and the real thing". I thought of offering up salvation as another of those things money can't buy, but fearing where the conversation might take us I ended it.
The tie-in between this funny but true story and the practice of politicians buying the affection of voters (and thereby unnaturally influencing their choice of government) should be obvious. Elections won on the basis of disproportionate financial contribution towards the campaign of political parties by a few wealthy people may be rightly regarded as pretence at democracy. The results obtained may differ from what they would have been, were it possible to attain a semblance of the ideal form of democracy.
Democracy is an idealistic framework - an idea - which someone thought up as a preferred method to revolution for changing governments. Governments selected through the democratic process ostensibly reflect the will of the people and are constrained to act in their interest or risk being removed at the next opportunity/election.
From its rise to popularity in the mid-1800s up until now, democracy's greatest threat, and a constant concern for political reformers, has been the methods used by politicians to gain the favour of constituents. Without campaign finance reform, and often in spite of it, political parties and their campaigns are financed by the moneyed class who are later rewarded with policies, contracts and the like to their suiting. As time has progressed, and getting the message out (influencing voters) has become more costly, the trend has worsened. Money and the cronyism it breeds have become major corrupting forces to the democratic process, thwarting the sacrosanct will of the majority who are not as financially endowed.
Let us for a moment take off our political blinkers, which allow us to see things only one way, and objectively examine the elections that took place recently in Jamaica. The party that ultimately prevailed at the polls is widely acknowledged to have been the beneficiary of disproportionate financial support from a few wealthy people whose primary interest was in seeing a change of government. The idealist would argue that the use to which these resources were put gave one party an unfair advantage over the other and so worked against the expression of the natural will and choice of the majority.
Of course, no one knows for sure whether, without the added financial support that the JLP received, the results would have been any different. In the current presidential race in the United States where one in three people see themselves as conservatives (against one in five as liberals), it does help the democrats that the man who currently occupies the White House is a bungling bureaucrat. (I was tempted to use another descriptor.) Similarly in Jamaica, where, according to Mr Seaga, "there are many more supporters of the PNP than the JLP", it was of immense help to the JLP that at the helm of the PNP is a yellow T-shirt-wearing messianic personality who did not enjoy the support of the top tier of her party until it was too late. Admittedly, the variables influencing electoral results in imperfect democracies such as ours are many.
But we hold on to the main principle that because of the manipulative (or motivational if you prefer) power of money, the motive behind its use can have a profoundly negative effect on the results it buys. That's why democracies all over the world are reforming how political campaigns are financed; bringing greater transparency to the process, providing a minimum level of support out of the public purse for legitimate contenders and limiting the size of individual contributions.
Being a reform-minded individual, one expects that when he would have ended his tenure as prime minister, a legacy of Mr Golding will be a totally revolutionised approach to how political campaigns are financed in this country. May the process that brought him and his party to power be the last that could be aptly described as the best election money can buy.
hmorgan@cwjamaica.com
Henley Morgan
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Is money a motivator? My friend and I were locked in a debate over this perennial and emotive issue. A pragmatist, my friend sees everything in black and white. To him it's "give me enough money and I will give you all the motivation you need".
Realising that I was getting nowhere with him, I pleaded in exasperation, "Surely, there are some things money can't buy." Showing no sympathy for me or my point of view, he put me against the ropes. "Name me one."
The idealist that I am, I shot back, "Love." That's when he moved in for the kill. "Drive by the corner of Ruthven Road and Trafalgar Road (where the prostitutes hang out) after dark and tell me what you call that." Under pressure and with growing indignation, I refused to throw in the towel just yet. "That's not love. That's sex." It was at that point that my friend made the most profound of observations. "What does it matter? Money will buy such a good pretence at love. It is impossible to tell the difference between it and the real thing". I thought of offering up salvation as another of those things money can't buy, but fearing where the conversation might take us I ended it.
The tie-in between this funny but true story and the practice of politicians buying the affection of voters (and thereby unnaturally influencing their choice of government) should be obvious. Elections won on the basis of disproportionate financial contribution towards the campaign of political parties by a few wealthy people may be rightly regarded as pretence at democracy. The results obtained may differ from what they would have been, were it possible to attain a semblance of the ideal form of democracy.
Democracy is an idealistic framework - an idea - which someone thought up as a preferred method to revolution for changing governments. Governments selected through the democratic process ostensibly reflect the will of the people and are constrained to act in their interest or risk being removed at the next opportunity/election.
From its rise to popularity in the mid-1800s up until now, democracy's greatest threat, and a constant concern for political reformers, has been the methods used by politicians to gain the favour of constituents. Without campaign finance reform, and often in spite of it, political parties and their campaigns are financed by the moneyed class who are later rewarded with policies, contracts and the like to their suiting. As time has progressed, and getting the message out (influencing voters) has become more costly, the trend has worsened. Money and the cronyism it breeds have become major corrupting forces to the democratic process, thwarting the sacrosanct will of the majority who are not as financially endowed.
Let us for a moment take off our political blinkers, which allow us to see things only one way, and objectively examine the elections that took place recently in Jamaica. The party that ultimately prevailed at the polls is widely acknowledged to have been the beneficiary of disproportionate financial support from a few wealthy people whose primary interest was in seeing a change of government. The idealist would argue that the use to which these resources were put gave one party an unfair advantage over the other and so worked against the expression of the natural will and choice of the majority.
Of course, no one knows for sure whether, without the added financial support that the JLP received, the results would have been any different. In the current presidential race in the United States where one in three people see themselves as conservatives (against one in five as liberals), it does help the democrats that the man who currently occupies the White House is a bungling bureaucrat. (I was tempted to use another descriptor.) Similarly in Jamaica, where, according to Mr Seaga, "there are many more supporters of the PNP than the JLP", it was of immense help to the JLP that at the helm of the PNP is a yellow T-shirt-wearing messianic personality who did not enjoy the support of the top tier of her party until it was too late. Admittedly, the variables influencing electoral results in imperfect democracies such as ours are many.
But we hold on to the main principle that because of the manipulative (or motivational if you prefer) power of money, the motive behind its use can have a profoundly negative effect on the results it buys. That's why democracies all over the world are reforming how political campaigns are financed; bringing greater transparency to the process, providing a minimum level of support out of the public purse for legitimate contenders and limiting the size of individual contributions.
Being a reform-minded individual, one expects that when he would have ended his tenure as prime minister, a legacy of Mr Golding will be a totally revolutionised approach to how political campaigns are financed in this country. May the process that brought him and his party to power be the last that could be aptly described as the best election money can buy.
hmorgan@cwjamaica.com