Robert Buddan, Contributor
MINISTER PHILLIPS has followed the police commissioner in confirming that there are links between politicians, drugs and crime. The Minister is in charge of the country's peace and it is good that he has chosen to distance himself from crime and politics and to set a standard for others to do the same. Some speculate that Minister Phillips is grandstanding as a part of his campaign for leadership of the PNP. But it is good for leaders to commit themselves publicly to peace, especially those who might wish to lead their party.
In 1993, the Prime Minister instructed the security forces to root out crime without regard to political influence. At about the same time, Portia Simpson Miller challenged anyone who knew of politicians who were distributing guns to call their names. K. D. Knight, then Minister of National Security and Justice, said he would not tolerate any situation where a Councillor, Minister, Member of Parliament, or candidate tried to influence the police and that if this happened it should be brought to his attention. At that time, Peter Phillips himself had echoed the Prime Minister's call for the police to do their work regardless of political affiliation.
EATING AWAY THE SYSTEM
PNP leaders might do well to remember Norman Manley's words in 1964, when gun violence in Western Kingston first came to public attention. Manley said "I will not be a party to inciting people to physical violence as a means of progress in this country. If you want a leadership that is going to incite people to violence, count me out and I will go." Unfortunately, the problem only got worse. Despite the calls by Patterson, Phillips, Simpson Miller and Knight more than 10 years ago, the problem continues to eat away at the credibility of our political system.
Charges of 'tainted' money in a recent party election, the arrest of a Councillor on drug charges, the arrests of two prominent persons who are claimed to have had party connections, the placing of two Jamaicans under U.S. sanctions, the establishment of a committee on tribalism, task force on crime, office of the political ombudsman, calls for non-partisan allocation of jobs, and reform of campaign finance, all testify to the stubbornness of the problems of politics, money, drugs and crime.
NAME THE GUILTY ONES
In 1993, Portia Simpson said "People who know of politicians distributing guns, come out and name them." A Gleaner editorial at the time said that restrictive libel laws, which the country had inherited from colonial days, made this difficult. The editorial explained that before calling a politician by name, a journalist or any citizen would have to be in possession of water-tight and full-proof evidence. Otherwise, that person would have to face the enormous costs of a trial, if charged under the libel laws. The editorial clearly wanted the libel laws to be changed. Yet, persons should really take these matters up with the police, since they are police business. If the case is that they do not trust the police, then the Commissioner must establish procedures or publicise them, if they exist, to protect the confidentiality of the accuser. The accuser need not have water-tight proof, only reasonable evidence, and this makes it easier to use that mechanism.
But there is a place for the law in all of this. Recent attempts in other countries to define a criminal gang and membership in a gang as a conspiracy to commit a crime seek to bring the law into this matter in a new way.
We might consider making a law that a political party or any organisation that associates (in some defined way) with a criminal person or enterprise be guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime and some sanction created for that organisation or its leadership, a sanction that might prohibit persons of that organisation from holding office in that organisation, whether it be a business organisation, a political party, or Government.
It might be a law that the National Committee on Crime and Violence could consider. After all, the committee did find that one of the factors that gave rise to crime and violence was that leadership in some communities had its roots in the drug culture. That committee's chairman is Reverend Herro Blair, the Political Ombudsman, and he has an interest in the integrity of political campaigns and overseeing the Political Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct also asks the parties to refrain from violence, which could be related to protecting criminal enterprise through politics.
PARTISAN ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
Such a law could be constructed to cover the partisan allocation of jobs and other resources, which is at the root of political tribalism. The National Committee on Tribalism found that "The allocation of scarce state resources by the political party in office and the award of public contracts on the basis of partisan favouritism have served to create violent divisions between political beneficiaries and the supporters of opposing parties.
"That analysis needs to be broadened to include persons belonging to political parties not in office since charges are made that opposition MPs also use SESP funds for partisan purposes. In fact, the statement needs to clarify what is meant by 'in office', to say if this also means in the office of Local Government. Furthermore, it should be broadened to include contractors who might be partisan in hiring, making payments and kickbacks.
Also, in the aftermath of the Temple Hall murders in 2003, one opposition MP felt that job allocation should be based on a formula by which an equal number of PNP, JLP and other party supporters be given jobs. The problem, therefore, does not lie only with the party in office.If a law is developed to deal with the problem, we might be able to avoid abolishing the SESP programme as the Committee recommended.
Some MPs insist that the SESP programme allows them to do good work in their constituencies without having to go through the time-consuming entanglements of the bureaucracy. We should also remember that the NDM had advocated increasing the amounts allocated to MPs so that they could undertake projects independently and have resources of their own. We should be careful not to undermine the MP, especially the honest MP, because of the bad apples and then blame MPs for not performing.
ADDRESSING SPECIFIC ISSUES
This particular law could be tailored to address some of the issues that arise from concerns about 'tainted' money. Again, this is a concern of the Political Ombudsman, who had said that, after the elections of 2002, he would be campaigning for reform of the system by which the election campaigns of parties are funded.
The two political parties have shown an interest in regulating campaign finance. The PNP is working on ideas to regulate campaign finance and remove partisanship from job allocations. The controversy over the JLP's election of a deputy leader now points, according to one preliminary investigation, to 'widespread bribery' which the Political Ombudsman might look into.
The case to deal with this issue is mounting.The Integrity Commission has also reported that some MPs have failed to submit statutory declarations on time, in full, or at all. The failure to furnish full and timely information about one's income, assets and liabilities will cast doubts about one's integrity. After all, the commission is a commission on integrity, and integrity is at issue in all the related issues of partisan allocation, campaign finance, drugs and crime.
The bottom line is process and sanctions. It might be that a law can take us a far way toward this. But it might also be that a centre for political integrity could bring all of the committees, commissions and offices concerned with political integrity under one umbrella to make and administer a regime that leaves no loopholes, provides strong sanctions, brings integrity to the political process and makes our representatives credible and properly accountable.
Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, Mona Campus, UWI. E-Mail: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm
