Peter D. Phillips, ContributorThe issue of corruption figured prominently in the recently concluded election campaign and persists even after, given the concerns raised about the Cuban-supported programme to replace incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs.
The settlement of this latest issue must await the report of the Auditor General before judgment can be settled and the chips left to fall where they may. The concern evident in the debate is a valid one, however, and is increasingly a central concern of development advocates and activists.
The reasons for this are clear cut. As Transparency International, one of the more recently formed global advocacy groups, puts it, corruption adversely affects "economic and democratic development and places a direct burden on the population". The misuse or improper appropriation of public funds, or the use of public position for private gain, which is the very essence of what we call corruption, raises the cost of doing business in the country, weakens the competitiveness of its enterprises, and destroys the reputation of our national institutions.
What is perhaps the most pernicious aspect of public corruption, however, is its effect on the breakdown of public trust between those who lead and the wider society. The end result is a breakdown in the 'moral order' or the set of shared values that lie at the heart of all successful and well-integrated societies.
Corruption scandals
Throughout the history of modern Jamaican politics, there has been a succession of so-called corruption scandals that have helped define the politics of each decade and each political administration. Some will recall, for example, the Mafessanti case of the 1960s and the allegations of union influence being peddled by high political personalities during the Shearer administration. In the 1970s, there was the so-called Iran sugar deal; the 1980s CARINOSA; NETSERV, and TRAFIGURA of the 1990s and the first decade of 2000s, respectively.
The focus of public debate understandably has been on politics and the political personalities supposedly responsible for corrupt practices. Much of this preoccupation is egged on by the distinctly partisan character of the debates which oftentimes confuses the issue even as it correctly highlights the need for us as a society to address this very important question.
Nevertheless, we should not ignore the fact that corrupt practices in Jamaica extend far beyond the political sphere and indeed, the prevalent view is that it is getting worse. Certainly, this is the implication of Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index (CPI) - which saw Jamaica slipping in the ranking over the period 2004 to 2007.
'Bandooloo' culture
Whatever our view of Transparency International's CPI, however, there are not many Jamaicans who cannot give details of instances where bribes have been paid to more or less minor public officials for driver's licences, certificates of fitness for motor vehicles, or for relief from prosecution for traffic offences. Alongside these are the more serious and weighty manifestations of the 'bandooloo' culture that have sprung up over the years involving, for example, the regular provision of protection of high-level criminals by law officers; persistent breaches of the Customs Act paid for by importers to custom officials, or the contract kickbacks paid to various state officials.
Inevitably, a linkage develops between this pattern of illicit payment for benefit and other forms of criminality, including serious organised crime. Druggists and gun importers seek out compliant customs and port officials, and racketeers and extortionists require accommodating law enforcers. When this vicious circle gets established, the security of all citizens is compromised and if it is allowed to persist, the survival of the State itself will be brought into question.
In light of the current threats, what then must be done? There is no doubt that successive administrations have implemented measures - legislative and administrative - to tackle the problem. Of note, for example, have been the Parliament (integrity of members) Act of the 1970s, the passage of the Contractor General Act and the formation of the National Contracts Committee of the 1980s and the Corruption Prevention Act and the formation of the Corruption Prevention Commission of the 1990s. Equally significant and of positive effect has been the increased levels of transparency occasioned by the passage of Access to Information legislation and the sheer expansion of the media which have given impetus to an increased investigative reporting. Various other administrative steps have been taken, including the revision of promulgation of new procurement guidelines across the ministries and their various agencies. Despite all this, the problem persists.
No effective enforcement
A key element explaining the persistence of the problem is the absence of effective enforcement. In reality, the essential guarantors of the integrity of democratic societies are courageous and competent law enforcers, willing and able to tackle all breaches of the law, no matter how high the status of those who break the law.
In our situation, this means that we have to continue, and indeed accelerate, the reform of the police force and, in particular, we have to courageously confront the problem of police corruption. Some recent measures have been put in place, including the establishment of the Professional Standards Branch and the appointment of an assistant commissioner of police with international expertise in this field to head the anti-corruption effort in the force. The new government would be well advised to put their fullest support behind the effort being spearheaded by the new assistant commissioner.
Given the pervasiveness of corrupt activity across the various levels of the state apparatus, however, and the myriad linkages between corrupt officials and those involved in serious organised crime, something more is required. An independent investigative authority, able to exercise police powers, and with a cadre of highly skilled and motivated and honest investigators is urgently needed.
We spent much time and effort during the previous administration examining various models of such an organisation that were in place in other countries, and trying to develop a structure that would have the required oversight mechanisms, so that it would be manifestly insulated from political direction and interference. Draft legislation had been prepared and I am pleased that in this area, the new administration appears to have opted for continuity. The matter is urgent.
Political party system
The other critical element in any effort to tackle the spectre of corruption must deal directly with the political party system. The lack of accountability and transparency surrounding the hundreds of millions of dollars raised by political parties and individual candidates provides easy and ready cover for corrupt practices to thrive.
Democratic politics requires vibrant political parties that have to be funded in order to effectively carry out their functions. We cannot, however, allow our political parties and politicians in their necessary quest for funding to become easy prey for influence peddlers, narco-traffickers and other miscreants. We have to grasp the challenge to provide some funding from the public purse and insist on proper systems of accountability and transparency to which the political parties would have to subject all their finances, and not just at election time. None of this absolves any of our political leaders of the responsibility to ensure that those they lead meet the requirements of integrity.
Adlai Stevenson, that renowned American statesman of the 1950s, once remarked: "I'm not an old, experienced hand at politics, but I am seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving you are unworthy of winning."
We need to save our politicians and our politics from the dilemma.
Peter Phillips is Leader of Opposition Business in the House and Spokesman on National Security.
