Peter EspeutDEMOCRACY, AS defined by US President Abraham Lincoln, is "government of the people, by the people and for the people", and that ideal has certainly captivated the hearts and minds of many over the years. Some treat democracy as something we have already achieved, but I hope you will agree with me that it remains an ideal, to which many of us still strive; but not all.
The assumption of democracy as we practise it, is that through a mechanism called 'elections', the 'people' will elect from among their number, a government which will act in their interest. Of course, it does not really work that way. In Jamaica (and in the USA and the UK and elsewhere) it is political parties who select (from among their number) those who will face the electorate; and then, it is the party faithful who will put them in power. In many western countries democracy has been reduced to "government of the party, by the party and for the party"; and maybe some party people genuinely believe that their party acts in the interests of "the people", but even casual observation will show otherwise.
NEW GOSPEL
Economic efficiency the new gospel of the market seeks to have the best "man" in the job, the cheapest inputs for the best quality output at the lowest price. But in party-style democracy, this does not apply: it will be a "party man" in the job, sourcing inputs from the party faithful at their price. For party-government, economic efficiency really only applies to the private sector, for in the public sector, politics determines who gets what, when and how. Party-style democracy means "jobs for the boys" as ministers and junior ministers if they win, and as 'consultants' if they lose whether they are good at their jobs or not. And so the route to a plum job becomes, not being the best qualified or the best performer, but the best "connected" with the party. The route to success even survival becomes to join a political party even if one's personal ideology (or religious belief) does not really conform to the party ideology. I have seen friends of mine compromise so many of the values they previously held so dear for the sake of 'the party'.
NEVER JOIN
Ultimately, I suppose, this why I could never join a political party; it would cost my conscience too much. But for me, the party does not do the biggest damage to democracy. As we seek to change the persons in the prime ministerial positions of our two main political parties, and as we watch the US elections play out, what comes out so clearly is that it takes cash to run a political campaign, and in the end, it is those who pay the piper who call the tune. Those who win internal party elections, and those who win national or local elections, are usually those the big campaign funders want to win.
In other words, "government becomes hostage to 'special interests'", a modern euphemism for corruption due to conflict of interest. We see it (and feel it) when the USA uses its clout to support US banana interests (who have made substantial campaign contributions) against Caribbean banana interests.
MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN
We saw it here in Jamaica when the NDM could not run a meaningful campaign because the Jamaican private sector (the real determinants of who win elections in Jamaica) would not contribute to it; they would fund Bruce as leader of the JLP but not as leader of the NDM; too much dolly-house would mash up. And so Bruce is back in the JLP. And it is private sector donors who decided who will challenge him. And it is the private sector donors who will decide which of the contenders for PNP president will win.
At base what we really have is "government of special interests, by special interests and for special interests". The people will be nowhere to be seen, because in Jamaica the mass of the people have always been held in open contempt.
SPECIAL INTERESTS
At least in the USA the maximum one can give as a campaign contribution is fixed, and all donations must be openly declared, so all can know when special interests are influencing the US government, and take the appropriate action. But in Jamaica, campaign contributions (and other donations) are secret; and we don't know how much they are, or where they go (into which coffers at which level of the party, or into which numbered Swiss bank account), and we have no way of knowing the nature or extent of the blatant threat from special interests (in or outside Jamaica) to our democracy. We don't know when a contract is awarded, or when a housing project is announced, whether the contractor or developer is a big party contributor.
Look on the balance sheet of any Jamaican company if you see any line called "political contributions". Accounting and auditing firms (part of the private sector) assist the system by hiding these "side payments" (as the World Bank calls them). It is a concerted effort to subvert whatever democracy we can claim to have. Could we please have a system in Jamaica where all donations to political parties are openly declared? The private sector won't call for it, and the political parties won't call for it. Only a few "visionaries and malcontents" from civil society not allied to politics will call for it, shouting into the wind.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
