Devon Dick

Recently, the president of the Jamaica Council of Churches (JCC), Rev. Karl Johnson, asked me to represent the JCC at a seminar to discuss 'Campaign Financing - Issues for Jamaica', hosted by the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce. The guest speaker was the erudite and knowledgeable Mrs. Dorothy Pine-McLarty, then independent member of the Electoral Advisory Committee, while the affable Milton Samuda, partner, Myers Fletcher and Gordon, chaired the function.

Some of the leading businesspersons present included second vice-president of the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce, Francis Kennedy, and managing director of Trade Winds Citrus, Peter McDonnell. Also present were Marcia Forbes, director Phase Three Productions, Camille Facey, senior vice-president Cable & Wireless, Jean Lowrie-Chin, managing director Pro Communications and Carlton Stewart of the National Consumers' League. The only politician present was Daryl Vaz, assistant treasurer of the JLP.

The position of the JCC is that the source and sums of financing of political parties should be disclosed. However, it appears that there is a move to make taxpayers partially fund political parties.

Some argue that the taxpayers should fund political parties because it is costing the main political parties $35m annually, which they are having difficulty maintaining. The line of argument is that private sources only come during an election and at an annual conference. The counter-argument would be that the political parties should be more prudent with the funds they get during times of plenty for the times of deprivation. This is what the country does. There are times when the country gets good flows of foreign currency but there are other times called 'tamarind season' and the finances have to be managed properly to cover the lean times. If the political parties cannot manage their funds properly, how do they hope to manage the country's finances?

Democracy argument

Another argument made was that democracy has no price. However, unfortunately people are equating democracy with political parties and voting. Democracy is far more than that. It is about the governed participating in the decision-making process by having access to information to make intelligent choices.

Up to the 1860s, the taxpayers had to pay the salaries of the Anglican clergy and for the erection and maintenance of their church buildings. Though Christianity is a good faith it was a bad decision for taxpayers to fund that denomination. There are still some European countries that pay the salaries of clergy persons, but I still believe that it is the voluntary contribution of the members that should pay salaries and take care of the operational expenses of the church.

Still another point made is that the declaration of sums and sources will cause some donors to stop giving. At the meeting, one donor said his family and company have been victimised. But how could it be, when there was no disclosure? The point is, under "no disclosure" everybody knows about donations. Therefore, the source is known. Have the donors stopped giving?

In addition, in another forum, a large donor said it would not affect him if it were disclosed. In any case, others might come on board because of transparency and accountability.

What the State should fund is well-equipped offices for Members of Parliament and a new or expanded Parliament building.

In an article on October 10, entitled "Say no more state funding" and a subsequent interview on RJR's 'Beyond the Headlines', I gave the reasons, it is a bad idea for the State to fund political parties and their campaigns either by increasing taxes or reducing expenditure on existing services. But I am afraid that what seems to be coming is, taxpayers will have to bail out political parties.

The Rev Devon Dick is pastor Boulevard Baptist Church and author of "Rebellion to Riot: the Church in Nation Building".