Espeut's broadside betrays ignorance, colonial mentality

Errol Miller, Contributor

Peter Espeut wrote a column published in the Gleaner of Friday, September 10, in which he cried shame on me specifically, and the other 'so-called' independent members of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), and accused us all for holding back the progress of the country. Mr Espeut has formed his judgement, questioned our integrity and made his declaration of shame on a single issue: that the independent commissioners, including me as chairman, did not insist on full public disclosure of the names of all contributors to political parties.

Mr Espeut has written from the cloistered confines of a columnist, and clearly without the benefits of all the facts. Judging from his arguments in the column, he appears to regard full public disclosure of contributions to political parties as the panacea for the transition from "a typical post-colonial society riddled with demagoguery and corruption to modern state with the sort of checks and balances that allow transparency and reduce absolute power".

As independent commissioners, we formed our judgment in a totally different context. We have been fully engaged in the deliberations on this subject including taking account of the views expressed by citizens in town meetings across the country, advice from international experts based on best practices world-wide, the views of the leadership of the political parties and consultations with the leadership of some groups that provide financing to political parties. Further, we had to consider the totality of all the issues involved, with full knowledge that there is no single remedy that will instantly and magically correct the maladies of which we are all concerned. So, allow me to outline the background against which the independent commissioners came to our position, as well as to recite the substance of the recommendations of the commission.

1. Currently, there is no legislation that regulates the conduct of political parties, despite the critical role that they play and the power they wield in our country.

2. The Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) and the ECJ have been engaged in actively discussing this matter for the last five years.

3. Disagreement on public disclosure of the names of contributors was the rock on which the efforts of the commission broke, in seeking to have legislation in place for the 2007 cycle of elections.

4. By April 2009, the commission had come to basic agreement on all elements included in the report that has recently been submitted to Parliament on the registration and financing of political parties, including further state funding of political parties and disclosure of contributors to political parties.

5. Nominated commissioners of the governing party stalled on signing the report. They subsequently explained that the party could not agree to further state funding for political parties in circumstances where the Government could not pay civil servants, teachers, nurses and police.

6. The nominated commissioners of the Opposition party countered by arguing that further state funding for political parties was the quid pro quo for their regulation. If there was to be no further state funding for political parties, then there had to be full public disclosure of all contributors to political parties.

7. These positions had already been stated and debated. The independent commissioners had evaluated the self-interests and merits of both positions and had brokered workable compromises that had been agreed. The commission was virtually back to square one with respect to recommending legislation to Parliament on this subject. This was the position in April 2010. The looming danger was that again, we may go into the next cycle of elections without having legislation on this critical area.

8. Cognisant of heightened public interest in June on the matter of the accountability of political parties, the independent commissioners did a final round of consultation, fine tuned and finalised the report to Parliament on the registration of political parties, and tabled it at the meeting of the commission on July 7, 2010, with the notification that signing would be at the next meeting on July 21, 2010.

9. The result was that the report to Parliament on the registration and financing of political parties was unanimously agreed and signed by all members of the commission.

10. The bipartisan convention that has been practised since 1979, which has been at the root of the progress that Jamaica has made on electoral reform, is that whatever is unanimously agreed by the Commission is passed into law by the Parliament without change. The signing of the report by all members of the commission, therefore, is the critical step from talk to action.

Having outlined the background against which the commission reached unanimous agreement on the report, it is important to briefly outline its major elements.

All political parties must be registered with the Electoral Commission in order to contest elections as a political party. Minimal rules are applied. However, political parties that quality for state funding must:

a) Have a written constitution that covers all areas essential to the conduct of democratic governance of the party including annual meetings to elect officers by members qualified to do so.

b) Submit to their annual meetings an annual budget of income and expenditures.

c) Treat all monies received, donated and contributed, as well as fees, as trust funds.

d) Submit to their annual meetings, audited accounts of the previous year, financial operations by auditors, approved by the commission.

e) Submit to the Commission a consolidated statement of income and expenditure inclusive of the party and all affiliate bodies that the party funds.

f) Supply the commission with the names of all their officers, members of parliament, councillors, constituency caretakers, councillor caretakers, constituency chairmen and the expenditures of those persons in their constituencies.

g) Disclose to the Disclosure Committee of the commission, comprised of the independent commissioners, the names, addresses and amounts of all contributors and donors of $100,000 or more.

h) Have their summarised consolidated accounts of the annual income and expenditure of the party published by the commission.

i) Limit the contributions of organisations and or individuals that contribute to no more than two and one half per cent of the annual budget and expenditure of the party.

j) Keep detailed financial records that match accounting standards and must make such records available to the commission if so demanded.

k) Apply State funds only in areas specified in the law.

Further:

l) All individuals or organisations contributing more than $100,000 to a political party must independently disclose that contribution to the Disclosure Committee of the commission.

m) State funding to political parties that qualify will not exceed 40 per cent of the cost of operating the party annually.

n) The Disclosure Committee of the commission will make recommendations to the Parliament annually, concerning the amount to be allocated for the state funding of

o) political parties. The funds allocated will be divided evenly between the parties that qualify.

p) The commission will have the power to investigate the veracity of the information provided by political parties, organisations and individuals. Where the information is found to be false, the commission will disclose all details publicly and take such other action that is appropriate.

q) No Government statutory body can make any contribution to any political party.

r) It shall be an offence for any political party or candidate of a political party to knowingly accept or use funds tainted by illegality, or to improperly use funds legally received.

s) The commission will have the power to make regulations including imposing fines and other penalties and suspending the registration of a political party, thus rendering that party unable to contest an election.

Currently, political parties including those that qualify for state funding, operate without any oversight whatsoever.

The raft of regulations recommended by the commission represent a major step forward to make political parties more accountable to their members, and to meet standards that can be enforced by the commission. It is the considered judgement of the independent commissioner that these requirements taken together as a whole, will advance democracy in the country and Jamaica's reputation in the region and the world.

On September 1 and 2, 2010, the Organisation of American States (OAS), in collaboration with the ECJ, held a Caribbean regional meeting on the subject of political party and campaign financing, at which Caribbean countries reviewed their experiences in this area. The meeting was attended by high-level leaders of political parties in government and opposition across the region. Jamaica was hailed as the leader in the region in addressing this subject. The ECJ received kudos for the work that had been done. Many countries stated their intention to follow the approach taken by the commission.

The OAS held the meeting in Jamaica because of its recognition of the steps being taken to address this difficult subject. Jamaica, the commission and I, as the chairman, have been commended by knowledgeable and experienced persons from outside the country for having made a breakthough on a most difficult subject.

Mr Espeut on the other hand, questioned the integrity of independent commissioners and myself and covers us in a blanket of shame. But then, the colonial mentality has always been to see Jamaicans and things Jamaican as inferior.

Mr Espeut has pronounced his verdict in very unequivocal terms. I will leave it to time and history to tell, but with a clear conscience that we did the best, when all we knew were taken into consideration.

Professor Errol Miller is chairman of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica.