Another election is upon us. It will be another election financed under financing rules better suited to the Wild West than a country almost 50 years into Independence. Both major political parties, and to a small extent, the Electoral Commission, are to blame.

The two parties and their 120 candidates are likely to spend between one and two billion dollars on their campaigns. This is an indecently large amount of money considering Jamaica's standard of living. How will the voters know who the major financiers are, and so be able to assess whether our elected leaders are likely to enter office with obligations to be repaid? Where will this money come from?

There is no obligation to be transparent about funds received. For this to be the position after so much time and resources have been expended on cleaning up the voting procedure can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt by both political parties to defer accountability as long as possible. This is unfortunate, especially against a background of allegations (although never proven) that votes were bought in the campaign for presidency of the PNP; and there is lots of talk about $1,000 being the going vote price for the next election.

Money laundering will be widespread in the next election. Drug dealers, and criminals see political financial contributions as a way of using the proceeds of criminal actions to influence the election of representatives/parties that will then 'repay' such investments with contracts in the future. This is money laundering. Money laundering is a criminal activity.

On a different level, one wonders if President Hugo Chávez is likely to inject funds into the election to influence its outcome. Jamaica's love affaire with Venezuela may be practical but it will be very dangerous for either party to become directly obligated to someone who so actively destroys democracy in his own country.

It is to be deeply regretted that the political parties have engineered (deliberately) the deferral of laws that demand transparency and accountability over election financing. There is no reason, however, why the political leaders cannot voluntarily commit their parties to higher and more ethical rules for the 2007 election.

Here are some ideas:

No candidate to be accepted by a party without a thorough investigation of the candidate's source of income, and full compliance with declarations to the Integrity Commission and full disclosure in the House of Representatives of all conflicts of interest.

No acceptance of any donation (to any party candidate or the party) without the treasurer of the party knowing about the contribution and having the same obligations as a banker to verify that the donation comes from an identified individual and from non-criminal income sources. If the treasurer cannot so verify, then the contribution should not be taken. The treasurers of both parties should be obligated by the Political Ombudsman to sign such a declaration before and after the election.

The ruling party always has an advantage. It can use the public agencies to suddenly start giving out new benefits (we have seen such an example, that might just have been coincidence, of the NHT increasing its benefits). For the last 18 years, contractors to the Government have only received their contracts from a Government led by one party. The PNP go into this election with these two enormous advantages. The PNP leadership, the Political Ombudsman and the general public need to reassure the voters that they understand and will not sanction the misuse of public funds for party benefit. To do otherwise is to endorse immorality.

Let's seewho cares for cleaning up a disgraceful situation. This election should become an example of ethical behaviour by both parties.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.