By Kern Spencer, ContributorCOMPETITION BETWEEN political parties for power has become almost a defining condition of Western democracy. The Jamaican party system, like the party system in Britain and the United States, is characterised as a two-party system.
MODERNISATION AND RESTRUCTURING
In keeping with the rapid pace of technological advancement where there are arguably more interesting and diverting ways for people to spend their leisure time in a modern consumer society and as our political parties compete for a more sophisticated, highly informed and educated electorate, more complex organisation structures to manage the relationship between the parliamentary leadership and the extra-parliamentary party operating at various levels in the country are required.
As indicated by Bill Coxall, Lynton Robins and Robert Leach, writing on contemporary British politics, modern parties require substantial permanent bureaucracies to meet their needs. This will mean employing increased numbers of paid staff - particularly at the centre, but also in the regions and the constituencies - as well as using large numbers of unpaid voluntary party activists. Professional expertise will be required for a range of purposes: raising money and controlling spending, marketing and advertising, policy-oriented research, legal advice, party management and administration.
Within the major parties in Britain there has been significant reorganisation to adapt to the changing political scenario. For example, there has been a significant reorganisation of the British Labour Party's central machinery. The membership of the National Executive Council was overhauled. The unions retained 12 seats but those on the NEC increased from 29 to 32 members. Party members vote for six constituency party members, who would no longer be MPs (MPs and government ministers are represented separately). Separate women's representatives were abolished and instead there were new rules requiring a minimum number of women in different categories of NEC members.
Similarly, coming out of the PNP's party conference, under the strict guidance of the Party Leader, the PNP has begun its modernisation process. First, through the work of the structures review committee chaired by Paul Burke, there have been over 51 amendments to the party's constitution. Most notably is the increased significance given to the PNPYO where its membership on the NEC (the highest decision-making body outside of its Party Conference) has increased from eight to 22. To go even further for a constituency to be 'recognised', it must demonstrate that it has an active Youth Organisation and Women's Movement.
The party also seems to have placed greater emphasis on political education with the adoption of the PNPYO's resolution calling for the resuscitation of a party school similar to what existed in the 1970s.
The party secretariat has also been overhauled and expanded. They have increased from two to four the amount of deputy general secretaries. Namely, (1) (Deputy General Secretary (DGS) - Organising and Political Edu-cation, (2) DGS- Administration, Finance, Research and Modernisation, (3)DGS- Electoral Matters, Enumeration and Welfare and (4) DGS- Communication and Outreach.
It is my understanding also that a number of commissions have been established ranging from outreach and welfare, human rights, policy formulation, political education and communication. The party's regions and constituencies received similar overhauling; for example, Region 5, which consists of St. Elizabeth and Manchester, has already appointed a number of sub-committees and has started rigid outreach and recruitment exercises. Region 3 (Kingston and St. Andrew) has also sought to modernise its central operations with the utilisation of four deputy chairpersons each assigned varying responsibilities including Marlon Lowe, former general secretary of the PNPYO, now given the responsibility as vice-chairman in charge of youth affairs.
FINANCING THE NEW PARADIGM
After all is said, there remains one fundamental concern: Where will all this cash flow from?
Recent events in the JLP arising from their deputy leadership race dramatise how important and controversial the issue of financing the operations of political parties are. Parties more than ever will be in serious need of money for many purposes including servicing their permanent organisation, paying administrators and agents, commissioning policy research, financing elections, political advertising and market research.
There are three main avenues for funding that can be utilised. Funds that flow from membership fees including group (in the case of the PNP) or branch (in the case of the JLP) dues and direct deductions from elected and appointed positions, donations by individuals and various organisations and finally state funding. It has been stated that with over six months before his elections George Bush has already raised over US$100 million.
MEMBERSHIP FEES
Ideally, funding for the new paradigm should stem from membership fees or an increased deduction from the parliamentarians' salaries. It is, however, virtually impossible for the funds that flow from subscriptions and equitable salary deductions to fund traditional activities much less the modern demands. The funding required to conduct the affairs of the PNP youth arm's (PNPYO) operations in a single parish could easily consume the annual income collected by the party from group dues. Both parties have indicated that their annual conferences alone at minimum require well over $8,000,000. It has been stated that to conduct campaign activities in some constituencies can cost a candidate easily over $6,000,000.
DONATIONS
Because of the inadequacy in the first option additional sources of funding are normally required, from business organisations, individual donors and other friendly entities. This can, however, be catastrophic for parties, as has been only too evident in recent times both locally and international. How far are donations to party treasuries effectively buying influence or status? Are these donors of reputable character? Are these funds tainted? Recent developments in the JLP have caused concerns about where did a particular candidate raise over $5,000,000 to conduct his deputy leadership campaign. The Party Leader and Leader of the Opposition publicly stated that such funds were illegal funds; but subsequently backtracked on his initial allegations.
In Britain, for example, there is a long history of allegations of the award of honours in return for donations to political parties. Recently, as documented in several journals, there have been charges that knighthoods and peerages have been given by Conservative governments to individuals that have made donations to the Conservative Party.
More devastating are the allegations of influence on policy and award of contracts to donors. Several administrations have been accused of awarding contracts to party donors and in the case of Britain, it has also been documented that the British Labour Party has courted several business entities to the extent where Blair's Labour Government was embarrassed by a large donation from Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One boss, in 1997. In 2002, the revelation that the new owner of the Express group of newspapers had given the Labour Party approximately £120,000 aroused anger from even party members, including Ministers that the party had accepted money from an individual who also owned a number of pornographic publications.
STATE FUNDING
The allegations about the use of dirty financing in the JLP has led to renewed interest in another possible source of funding for parties: state funding, stated bluntly, funding from taxation. It should be noted that many countries have already moved to this form of funding. In the United Kingdom, for example, some limited state funding is made available for Opposition parties to fund policy research.
The idea behind this was that while the government of the day can rely largely on the work of the regular civil service, paid special advisers and appointed commissions and committees of enquiry, opposition parties formerly had to rely on their own party resources and friendly research bodies. Either way research costs money. The consequences of under-financed and possibly ill-thought out research in opposition may be manifesto commitments, which prove unworkable if the party exchanges opposition for government.
More controversial is the concept of state funding for party election campaigning expenditure and party propaganda (which is already provided in some countries). Particularly with the current emphasis on image and marketing, it may be argued that the best-financed parties have distinct advantage.
CONCLUSIONS
In the interest of protecting our democracy this issue of party financing must be dealt with immediately. I strongly believe that we should look closely and accept in principle, subject to further analysis, the findings made by the British's Neil Committee in 1998. I agree that:
There should be a disclosure of donations to the party's central treasury of more than a certain figure. (Probably $200,000) and ($50,000 in the case of constituencies).
A cap should be placed on parties general election campaign spending.
A ban should be placed on anonymous donations to political parties of more than $5,000.
Scrutiny of nominations for honours, etc., where nominees have donated more than a specified figure within a specified period, e.g., five years.
An independent and impartial Election Commission should be established to refine and monitor the agreed regulations.
Public funding should be made available to fund political parties. Specific guidelines should however be properly thought out. The benefits of this outcome will far outweigh the cost to our democracy.
These are mere initial thoughts. Let the debates begin. Both parties should articulate their positions on the issue so that a national consensus can be developed. It would be good if they also took the opportunity to start the process of Constitution Reform.
Kern Spencer is Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of National Security and president of the PNPYO.
