Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com

SKNBuzz Radio - Strictly Local Music Toon Center
My Account | Contact Us  

Our Partner For Official online store of the Phoenix Suns Jerseys

 Home  >  Headlines  >  OPINION
Posted: Sunday 16 November, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Should political parties disclose their campaign financiers?

By: Stanford Conway, SKNVibes.com

    BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – AS a result of discussions held on WINN FM’s ‘Inside the News’ on Saturday (Nov. 8) in which members of the panel spoke to the issue of campaign financing, SKNVibes decided to conduct a research with the aim of sensitising readers on this very important topic.

     

    According to a document published by the OAS and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) that reflects the opinions of a number of Caribbean donors, elections in CARICOM member states are privately funded.
     
    This system, it noted, “tends to favour established parties and incumbents with existing state control and/or established support amongst local and expatriate business communities. Caps on spending by candidates are absent or extremely low and are rarely respected. There is no ceiling on the funding parties can raise or spend and, with few exceptions, donors are not obliged to declare what they give, nor are parties obliged to declare what they receive. Most donors insist on confidentiality, in part because they fear that disclosure would invite victimisation or charges of partiality”.
     
    With the exception of Haiti and Suriname, CARICOM states are Anglophone and continuing members of the British Commonwealth; and with the exception of Guyana and Suriname, their electoral systems are based on the Westminster First-Past-The-Post model. Elections in the two South American CARICOM member states are contested on the basis of Proportional Representation.
     
    However, for the purpose of the research, this article will only highlight the findings on campaign financing in St. Kitts and Nevis.
     
    A point to note is that election campaigns are capital intensive and market-oriented, and with this in mind, some of us may ask what political campaign finance and campaign financiers mean.
     
    While the former term can be defined as all funds raised in order to promote a political party and/or candidate in an election, the latter can be defined as those individuals and organisations, especially wealthy businessmen, who contribute financially in promoting a political party or candidate in an election.
     
    However, what must also be noted is that while there may be positive effects arising from these contributions for some political parties, either by retaining power or gaining power, there is also the negative side. Negative in the sense that reciprocity will be the order of the day – the granting of contracts and tax concessions, as well as a slap on the wrist when caught breaking the law, among others.
     
    Now, let us look at St. Kitts and Nevis.  
     
    In July 2011 the population of the twin-island Federation was estimated at 50 314, mostly of African descent, with only two changes in governance since self-government in 1957. The dominant party in St. Kitts is the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party (SKNLP), which had governed the Federation from 1957 to 1980, the year when it was defeated by a coalition of the People’s Action Movement (PAM) and the Nevis Reformation Party (NRP). However, the SKNLP returned to office in 1995 and has since defeated its rival in three successive elections.
     
    The Federation’s electorate consists of 11 constituencies, eight on St. Kitts and three on Nevis.
     
    According to the document, in 1995 the Commonwealth Observer Group had praised the colourful and good-natured style of political campaign in the St. Kitts and Nevis, but noted in its report that “in respect of the campaign there are no provisions in the law which limit financial expenditure by political parties”. 
     
    The lack of provision in the matter of campaign finance, it added, stems from the fact that the existing legislation dates back as far as 1983, at which time there was no public pressure for restraints on campaign financing. The law has not been updated or amended since.
      
    It was highlighted that since there was no legislative requirement for disclosure of contributions, it was impossible to quantify the amount received by the contesting political parties, adding that the governing party has an inherent advantage over the opposition parties, since the government authorities hold the levers of power. 
     
    It further highlighted that added to contributions, parties get assistance from distinguished visiting platform speakers from fellow Caribbean countries, Canada or Britain, and that political parties in Canada and Great Britain have provided technical assistance to parties in St. Kitts.
     
    Contributors to the OAS/IDEA published document posited that campaign financing in the Federation is shrouded in secrecy and this is a result of not having legislative provision for disclosure. Therefore, neither the ruling party nor the opposition publicises the nature and extent of contributions received before, during or after elections.
     
    Nevis also came under the contributors’ spotlight. 
     
    The document noted that just as it is with Federal Elections, so is it with the Island Elections for Nevis Administration, and it would therefore be a matter of speculation with party members and contributors.
     
    It stressed that there continues to be little community pressure for electoral reform, including provision for campaign finance constraints, and that members of the public and electoral officials acknowledged that no amount of legislation would prevent finance in cash reaching both government and opposition parties and their candidates.
     
    Conclusively, the document stated: “The political leader of the PAM however has been requesting electoral reform, even though the existing legislation was promulgated while his party was in office. While there does not appear to be any objection by the government to political party or campaign financing reform, the issue does not have high priority.”
     
    In years gone by, political parties in the Caribbean, including St. Kitts and Nevis, used to obtain finance for election campaign through party membership dues, donations from minority group businesses, union contributions and party supporters making house-to-house calls for donations.
     
    However, while this form of acquiring campaign financing is still prevalent, much has changed with Caribbean politicians adopting the campaign strategy of the United States of American and many other countries.
     
    As Garth Bertrand stated in his Thesis Paper ‘Campaign Financing and the Negative Effects of Political Financiers In Trinidad and Tobago’, political campaigning has resorted to a full fledge “air war” fought by newspapers, radio and television. “Thus, as a result of this change; of this full fledge “air war” between political parties in Trinidad and Tobago, there is a dire need for funds to support their campaign efforts that is also inclusive of posters and flyers; entertainment; pollsters; spin doctors...” 
     
    The same can be said about all other CARICOM member states.
     
    In St. Kitts and Nevis we have year-round political radio talk shows and foreign and local entertainers are being engaged to perform at both ruling and opposition parties’ political rallies. And these activities, especially the latter, cost a lot of money! 
     
    Currently, with elections in the air, many posters and billboards have been erected on public utility poles and stanchions around the island of St. Kitts; while on sister isle Nevis the ‘Big Blue Machine’ of the ruling Concerned Citizen Movement (CCM) has already rolled out.
     
    We are also seeing town hall meetings by the SKNLP, the tri-party coalition Team Unity, CCM and NRP, all in the effort of raising awareness of what happened, what is happening in the Federation and promises of a better life for all, with the primary aim of convincing the electorate to vote for them. And these meetings as well as all others are normally aired. They, too, cost money!
     
    Further, we are seeing parties on both sides of the political spectrum turning to the Courts and each of them on St. Kitts claiming victory for whatever the reason. This is another venture that costs a lot of money, even more than the entertainment, talk shows, radio and television advertisements, flyers, billboards and posters strategies combined. 
     
    Conclusively, election campaigns are capital intensive, and it is a known fact that all political parties within CARICOM member states do not declare who their financiers are. And, in the past, while opposition parties had been clamouring for those in office to say from where their campaign funds originated and accusing them of using taxpayers’ money for that purpose, the brouhaha ended when they attained power. Therefore, it is SKNVibes’ opinion that both ruling and opposition parties will never truthfully say from whence their campaign came until there is legislation for disclosure.
     
    In the May 2005 Report of the Advisory Committee on Remuneration for Members of the Federal Parliament in St. Kitts and Nevis, the Committee, which was chaired by Governor of ECCB Sir Dwight Venner, had recommended, among other areas of concern, the introduction of Integrity in Public Life Legislation and Campaign Finance Legislation. 
     
    The Report was said to have been accepted by government but, since then, there was no word on the implementation of the Campaign Finance Legislation.
     
    The final statement on the Report reads: “After 21 years of independence, St. Kitts and Nevis will demonstrate that it has truly come of age if efforts can begin now to make progress on these two crucial issues.”
     
    The question therefore begs of you, readers: “Should political parties disclose their campaign financiers?”
     
Copyright © 2024 SKNVibes, Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy   Terms of Service