Abe Dabdoub, Contributor

Dabdoub

There appears to be some confusion surrounding the reasons for the establishment and functions of the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) (soon to become an Electoral Commission). As one who was intricately involved in advising the then Leader of the Opposition, Edward Seaga, I consider it my duty even for the sake of posterity, to set the record straight.

The EAC came about after the Basil Buck v. Aston King Election Petition in which numerous electoral malpractices were exposed. The decision was taken by both Government and Opposition to remove the electoral system from being manipulated by placing it in the hands of an independent body.

In order to give effect to the agreement between the Govern-ment and Opposition, the EAC was created as an advisory body to the Director of Elections who the act provided for as being the person who would perform the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer. [see Sections 5 and 6 of the Represen-tation of the People (Interim Electoral Reform) Act which came into effect on September 7, 1979]. The Chief Electoral Officer is the person with responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. This person is now Mr. Danville Walker.

Section 7 of the act clearly states that it is the minister who shall be responsible to Parliament for matters concerning the activities of the committee and, accordingly, the committee shall keep the minister fully informed of all such matters, and shall furnish the minister with such information as he may request with respect to any particular matter. The committee was also empowered to, with the approval of the minister, make regulations establishing pension schemes, gratuities and other retiring benefits in relation to employees of the committee, the Director of Elections and the selected members.

Mutual agreement

It was agreed by the then Government and Opposition that EAC recommendations in relation to the carrying out of their functions under the act would be accepted and given legislative effect by the Parliament. Some time later it was agreed that the minister would seek their advice regarding the number of constituencies and their boundaries.

Neither the Constitution of Jamaica, the Representation of the People Act nor the Representation of the People (Interim Electoral Reform) Act speaks to political parties or even acknowledges their existence. It is clear that the question of regulating and controlling the funding of political parties was never an area over which the legal authority of the EAC extended or was intended to extend.

The political parties have been, for many years, primarily concerned with the public funding of election campaigns and elections. I recognise that within the context of the limitations placed on candidates (not political parties) under the Representation of the People Act, the EAC may make recommendations to Parliament through the minister for the amendment or otherwise of provisions under that act. But this is only a small part of what the bill entitled 'The Registration and Funding of Political Parties' seeks to regulate. The bill deals extensively with the transparency and accountability of political parties on a year-to-year basis, in and out of elections, in so far as their receipts and expenditures are concerned.

Regulatory framework

A regulatory framework for the registration and funding of political parties is long overdue. We need more action, less talk.

The Gleaner, in one of its editorials, quite correctly highlights the possibility of narco-money flowing into the political process and that drug dealers could, by proxy, buy their way to power by financing the ascension to power of one of our political parties. Indeed, it is after Edward Seaga raised this concern by referring to what he considered "tainted money" being used in an internal JLP election in 2003 that I commenced my research, which led to my laying of the bill on May 10, 2006, long before Trafigura arose.

I consider it most disingenuous of the Leader of the Opposition to seek to avoid the debate on the bill because, according to him, there is a convention that these matters would await the deliberations of the EAC. The EAC has no legal mandate to make recommendations regarding the registration and funding of political parties.

The bill currently before Parliament seeks to establish the Electoral Commission as the "registration authority." This bill was laid by me in the House on May 10, 2006.

Ever since laying the bill, I have spoken repeatedly to the Leader of Government Business, seeking to have it debated. I was informed that the Government supported the bill in principle and that it was before a party committee in the PNP and that as soon as that deliberation was concluded a date would be set. I therefore expected the bill to be debated some time this month and sent to a joint select committee.

The enacting of legislation for the registration and funding of political parties is not rocket science. What is before the House is an extensive coverage of the areas already identified as in need of regulation. It is a starting point for the elected representatives of the people to consider.

There is no necessity for the Leader of the Opposition to seek to have the EAC (Electoral Commission) reinvent the wheel.

Further, it is my considered view that the people of Jamaica have an interest in this area of national life and no doubt would wish to make an input. There are other political parties not represented on the EAC who, no doubt, would wish to have an input. The Gleaner's editorial was quite correct in pointing out that the EAC (Electoral Commission) cannot be the sole arbiter in this regard. It is my hope that they will examine the bill and make timely recommendations to the Joint Select Committee of Parliament, which is the place where laws are passed.

Your editorial of October 13, 2006, recognises that we should be on the watch for those arguments, which claim that transparency will drive "legitimate" money away from politics and/or drive parties and their donors into subterfuge to bypass regulations. These are indeed the arguments of persons whose real motive is likely to be the maintenance of the status quo. It is also the arguments of those who seek to ensure that enacted legislation is a watered-down version of what is now before Parliament. This would provide enough loopholes for political gymnastics and manoeuvres.

This legislation cannot await the luxury of three months for a report on proposals and recommendations already made in a bi-partisan meeting hosted by the EAC.

Abe Dabdoub is Member of Parliament for North East St. Catherine.