Earl. M. Bartley, Contributor
THOSE POLITICIANS calling for state funding of elections take us for idiots. 'Dem tink we bawn backa cow' to use a forthright Jamaican expression. They want us to help them to sucker us. Those Jamaicans who believe that if taxpayers were to start funding the parties and election campaigns, that this would stop any politician so inclined from taking 'scandal bags' full of money, were either born yesterday or are very naive.
What is happening mainly, is that the expense of running the 'curry-goat' and 'buy vote' politics the politicians have developed over the years, has become so prohibitive, they are finding it difficult to raise enough money to finance elections. And given their perception of us as hapless dupes, they are now coming forward, couching their pickpocketing in the language of protecting democracy.
If our politicians had been practising a politics of principle and trying to sway voters on the issues, the cost of elections might be very much cheaper especially for a relatively small country like Jamaica. For the October 2002 general elections both parties claimed to have spent about $200 million each. But only about a combined $100 million of this amount is estimated to have been spent on media advertisement. In other words, three-quarters of campaign funds were spent on 'organisation.'
This confirms widespread anecdotes that our parties and politicians have been paying their supporters to canvas for them, and that they have to buy them 'lunch' or give them 'pocket-money' to ride motorcades and attend meetings, especially out of town. And, as is often alleged, and seems well established to the point of becoming a cultural feature, our political parties continue to harbour and pay, directly or indirectly, assorted gunmen and thugs to murder, terrorise, and 'garrisonise' people for electoral gain.
Can parties that engage in such practices be deserving of public funding? And do Jamaicans really believe that throwing money in these cesspools would cause our politicians to stop supporting or associating with certain questionable elements in their parties, in life or in death?
It seems to me, before either of Jamaica's two main political parties can qualify for public funding, they would need to clean up their act and make many more changes in their operations than the modest changes they have made over the past 50 years.
And we cannot fund them to better enable them to 'transform', as PNP politician Anthony Hylton argued in the Sundey Observer last week (Dec. 7, 2003). The parties will have to change first in substantive and observable ways to render themselves deserving of public funding.
SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM
I believe the best line of defence against the corruption of politics is to take the profit out of it for both the politician and their more unscrupulous supporters. It is generally acknowledged that these unscrupulous elements are attracted to politics because of their expectations of lucrative contracts if their party wins.
Over the years, some efforts have been made mostly as face-card to reduce the unbridled self-aggrandisement and impropriety in the public sector contract awards process. The greater progress however has been made in 'monitoring' the performance of work while the 'awarding' of contracts continues to be riddled by improper political influences and manipulations.
To recall, prior to 1987 there was no objective system for awarding government contracts. Contracts were almost exclusively awarded by politicians to their favourites quite often as pay-off for their support financial and physical. This was the era in which notorious political henchmen like the late 'Feathermop' were seen to be 'bathing' in government contracts.
Then in 1987 the Seaga Administration established the Office of the Contractor-General (CG). The purpose of the CG was to ensure that Government contracts were awarded fairly and impartially and to monitor the performance of the work to ensure that it was done properly. In practice, however, while the Contractor-General played an enhanced role in monitoring the performance of public sector contracts, the actual awarding of contracts continued to be done within the ministries under the overall control and influence of the politicians with the CG mainly reviewing the awards.
Towards the end of 2000, the Patterson Administration claimed to have improved the public sector contract system by establishing the Contracts Commission. But this eight-member Commission appointed by the Governor-General continues to function mainly as a reviewing body. Contracts continue to be advertised by the ministries and the processing of bids is done within the ministries, where all kinds of political influences and manipulations can be brought to bear and are often brought to bear.
After the bids are processed, the recommended bid and the two top contenders are forwarded to the Contracts Commission for their review and examination. The Commissioners can ask questions, endorse or reject the recommended bid. The point is, however, if there is a move to rig the bid, by the time it reaches the Contract Commission, the rigging is already done.
And, as we have seen in recent times, through the device of the 'big contract' where one huge multi-billion contract is awarded to a main contractor, who then has sole responsibility for awarding large multi-million dollar sub-contracts (or so it is claimed), the politicians are able to circumvent the scrutiny of the Contracts Commission and to continue to award contracts to their political favourites. Further underscoring the fact of political control over the public sector contracts award process, ministers are required to approve all contracts above $5 million within their ministries and the Cabinet has to approve contracts above $15 million.
CHANGING THE
POLITICAL CULTURE
The single most important thing in reducing the skulduggery in Jamaican politics, would be to eliminate the control or influence politicians exert over the awarding of contracts. In some countries, such as the United States, politicians decide the 'priorities' how much is to be spent for what purpose, in which constituencies.
But the actual awarding of contracts to particular individuals or companies is done by engineers and accountants or other qualified persons in the public bureaucracy.Jamaica could benefit greatly by adopting such a system; and it would take only modest changes in the structure of existing institutions that currently operate in the public sector contracting system, and in the allocation of their responsibilities.
The Contractor-General sitting as chairman of the Commission would become truly responsible for awarding or selecting the contractors for all public works, not simply reviewing the bids or monitoring the work as is now the case. On the instruction of a Ministry or Cabinet the CG would advertise for contractors and do the evaluation and selection of bids. These could then be passed back to the ministers/ministries or Cabinet for their review and approval. The politicians could ask questions and make recommendations but could not override the considered technical judgement of the Commission.
Of course, to carry out this work efficiently the staff of the Contractor-General Office might need to be expanded, drawing some of the required technical personnel from existing ministries. The Commission would also be expanded to at least nine members with a representative from each of the political parties to ensure that the Commission is acting without political bias.
Given the central and important role that a CG's office would play in the Jamaican state sector the entire Commission would be required to report at quarterly intervals to the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament to ensure that the Commissioners themselves are not being corruptly influenced.
PROBATION In addition to removing the awarding of contracts from politicians as a necessary step to eliminating the corruption of politics, it seems to me for the two main political parties to qualify for public funds they would have to undergo a five to 10-year probation, given their past and present misconduct. During this probationary period they would have to consent to, and be subject to close scrutiny by a Probation Committee comprised of civil society representatives and the police.Though the entire country has benefited from a 20-year-long ceasefire in the previous hot war between the parties, the shock troops which fought that war have not been demobilised, least of all disarmed.
This cold war can, and quite often still explodes into hot war as witnessed by incidents in Mountain View Avenue and Spanish Town in recent months. Despite the denials of the leadership of the political parties, there are widespread and credible reports that contestants in elections engage in vote-buying; and in the garrisons, citizens are still routinely terrorised and intimidated on how to vote. Furthermore, despite their protestations, anyone with an ounce of street savvy knows that politicians from both parties are in bed with drug dons and other assorted criminals.
If our politicians really desire public funds during the probationary period (and after) they would have to cooperate fully with the police by providing information on the whereabouts of the gunmen and guns in their constituencies. Undercover police would also investigate and report annually to the Probation Committee on the extent of vote buying and other undemocratic activities involving the parties; and the steps they were taking to exclude tainted money and active criminals from their ranks.
After five years the Probation Committee would review the position of the parties and offer their recommendation to the public.The concerns about 'tainted money' infiltrating our politics are but one manifestation of the depraved 'licky-licky' motivation that has dominated Jamaican politics for the past 50 years, and which is deeply rooted in the control of the public sector contract awards system by politicians.
To counter these corrupting influences the country should adopt a more objective bureaucratic system somewhat similar in its structure and mode of operation to our Electoral Commission. Without such fundamental changes and observable improvement in the conduct of the parties, providing them with taxpayers money would be tantamount to subsidising them in their skulduggery.
Earl M. Bartley is an economist and businessman. You can email him at adapapa@cwjamaica.com
