Robert Buddan, Contributor

In 2004, Doris 'Granny D' Haddock ran in New Hampshire for the U.S. Senate against the incumbent Republican. Granny D was 94 years old. She ran on a shoestring budget of US$200,000 raised from ordinary Americans by volunteers. This could hardly pay for more than a couple of television advertisements. It was her first attempt to run for Congress and she joined the race only four months before the elections.

She was widely expected to lose, and she did. But in the process, Granny D surprised even herself by winning the candidates' debate three to one, according to the polls. Experts had said she would win 10 per cent of the votes and 20 per cent at best. She won 34 per cent.

She got her message across. Big private money played too great a part in American democracy. She wanted public funding for elections. She proved that ordinary Americans (who are not millionaires) could run for congress. Now she says someone else needs to prove that ordinary Americans can win.

Americans have two ways of saying who a front-runner in a race is - the person who is leading in the polls and the person who is leading in fund-raising. Hillary Clinton had been predicted to become the Democratic front-runner when her campaign started pulling in more money than those of her opponents. Now, analysts are saying she is very likely to win the nomination even before a single primary has been held. She has taken a solid lead in funding and in the polls.

ACCOUNTABLE FINANCING

Popularity in the polls can pull in money as sponsors try to back the likely winner, according to conventional wisdom. But money can make candidates popular too when democracy becomes, as Granny D called it, a bribe machine.

Bruce Golding had championed the American model of government as leader of the NDM. He has never championed transparent and accountable election campaign financing. Abe Dabdoub left Mr. Golding's company because he said too much big money was taking over the party. He went on to introduce a bill in Parliament for transparent and accountable election financing. Mr. Golding has said that he did not believe in public disclosure of private contribution to campaigns. Granny D said democracy was not something you have, it's something you do. If you do your campaign based on the people's trust you will have democracy. If you do it into ways to place yourself in the trust of special interests, you will not have democracy.

Mr. Golding has been tinkering with Parliament to make power and responsibility more equitable. Unfortunately, Mr. Dabdoub and Professor Trevor Munroe, two of the strongest advocates of campaign finance reform (and possibly two victims of the present system) are not Members of Parliament. But Anthony Hylton is and he is a strong supporter of reforms as well. Mr. Hylton must now take up the charge. The PNP should use the close balance of power in Parliament to make Parliament work to do what it is there for, represent the people and not big money. It is not enough to make Parliament work better for parliamentarians. It must work for democracy and so, for all of us. It is not enough to make Parliament work after people get into Parliament. Parliament must also work to make rules for how people get into Parliament. They must get there on the people's trust.

The PNP must continue Mr. Dabdoub and Professor Munroe's efforts. It must call upon Parliament to debate Mr. Dabdoub's bill. In fact, if Parliament is really to balance the powers between the Government and Opposition, it might consider a proposal aired in Guyana, to allow the Opposition to introduce a limited number of bills. And, if Parliament is to represent the people, it should allows bills to be introduced from organisations outside of Parliament, as is done in Cuba. The PNP should also resurrect the on-and-off debate on constitutional reform, including making the Election Commission part of a new constitution with powers to oversee campaign financing laws.

At the last PNP conference, Bobby Pickersgill said that he believed the JLP had spent between US$30 million and US$50 million on its campaign. This would make it the most expensive campaign in the history of Anglo-Caribbean elections since 1944. Mr. Pickersgill believed that the JLP outspent the PNP by between five and ten to one. Where did this money come from? We need to have transparency to say if money comes from overseas, criminal sources, or special interests.

The Committees on Privileges and Ethics are good places to begin. The Committee on Privileges considers departures from the code of conduct; full disclosure of conflicts of interests; and requests for exemptions for members who are party to contracts with government. In October 2006, Mr. Golding himself had complained that exemptions were granted automatically and should be given full discussion.

The Vale Royal Summit produced agreement that a committee on ethics should be established. When Parliament agreed in February 2006 to allow laptops to be used in the House, and two companies agreed to make gifts of laptops to parliamentarians, Mr. Golding questioned whether it was appropriate for Parliamentarians to accept gifts from commercial bodies affected by Parliament's decisions.

GIFTS AND DISCLOSURE

Surely, the matter of accepting large donations from commercial entities poses a greater problem than accepting laptops. Campaign donations are not loans, but gifts. They come from commercial entities. They go to parliamentarians who make decisions that affect these commercial interests. They might be obtained or used in ways that violate the code of conduct. By Mr. Golding's own reasoning, these committees should also consider campaign finances in relation to their influence on Parliament. It is not just parties that should disclose the source and use of funds, but Members of Parliament who should do the same to the privileges and/or ethics committees.

If Mr. Golding wants the parliamentary committees to make the work of parliament more transparent and beyond reproach, then these committees should include this matter of disclosure in their terms of reference. It is not just how committees are constituted that is important, but what they are constituted to consider and what they are empowered to do that is. Governance, we are told, must ensure that there is a 'business-friendly environment'. But governance also requires equity of treatment. So, how are we to ensure that government does not treat some businesses that have got it elected friendlier than those that did not? How are we to know whether friendly businesses are not rewarded through strategic appointments, government contracts, protected markets, subsidies, tax discounts or price increases, in exchange for specific or generalised support for a party in power and for a party to get into power.

Granny D is now 97 and still campaigning for a clean and equitable democracy. The problem that democracies face is the problem of capture. The most powerful people in democracies capture the means of greatest benefit. I am afraid that fiddling with Parliament is not going to produce the music that Jamaicans want to hear, not if 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. E-mail: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm