At the recent preview of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) manifesto just over a week ago, General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo said his party would put into effect campaign finance reforms if it wins elections in 2020.
Sharing the party’s rationale, Jagdeo signalled that the PPP/C has come to favour such legislation in light of fears that oil companies and companies operating in the oil sector may seek to buy favour and, ultimately, favourable policies by financing the election campaigns of political parties.
Such a reality, Jagdeo said, would serve to subvert Guyana’s political system, and allow foreign private interests to influence national decisions.
However, in a separate interview with this newspaper, attorney Ronald Burch-Smith said that modern campaign finance legislation will continue to elude Guyana as this absence serves the interests of the political parties, and donors who benefit from the anonymity which prevails.
Burch-Smith is of the view that in such circumstances the political parties and the donors who make donations with tacit expectation of receiving beneficial treatment if the party they support wins the government, are unlikely to support legislation which promotes transparency and accountability regarding parties, and the individuals and businesses which support them.
Burch-Smith, who holds a Master’s in International Trade Policy from the University of the West Indies and who has lectured for ten years in International Trade, Trade Relations, and Law and Development in the LL.B and Banking and Finance programmes at the University of Guyana (UG), is of the opinion that campaign finance reform is needed in light of the untoward dealings which continue to thrive in its absence.
“The issue is that… you are giving to get something. You are not giving because of ideology, you are giving a large sum of money to get something back. It is not necessarily because you want to execute legitimate works…,” Burch-Smith posited.
Asked whether everyone who contributes large sums of money is looking for favourable treatment, Burch-Smith said, “Why are you giving large sums of money? Why does a businessman spend $50 million on a party? It is more likely than not that large sums of money given in shadowy circumstances are given for favours.”
“If you walk into Freedom House or Congress Place, and you say you want to make a donation of US$50,000, and the parties formal booking process records it, and issues you a receipt, then it is subject to the party’s internal controls as to how the money is spent, whether it is spent wisely or whether it is misappropriated…,” he further pointed out.
Burch-Smith added that “one should assume that parties have loose controls because they do not have to account to anybody, they do not have to publish any reports, they are not audited by anybody” and he suggested “…that every organisation that is not subject to taxation should be subject to audits.”
Victimisation and crime as barriers?
Speaking to Stabroek News in 2017, Treasurer of the Alliance for Change (AFC) Dominic Gaskin had said, “…It [campaign finance reform] is a very important discussion for us to have and which I personally would love for us to have… at the same time, I don’t see the environment for this to be properly implemented in Guyana. So I think it will be farcical for us to embark on something that has good intentions when all of us know that things will continue to happen the way they have always done in the past”.
He had also said that before such legislation is implemented, “…we first have to create an environment in which victimisation of political supporters does not take place and where our individuals and businesses are comfortable in declaring contributions to political parties without fear of recrimination or anything like that”.
The A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) coalition has not suggested that this position has changed.
Burch-Smith also acknowledged that fear of victimisation and being made a target for criminal activity are also legitimate reasons why some donors may continue to resist such regulation.
“The problem of course is that accountability obligation can be abused in the sense that somebody disqualifies you because your accountant has not finished your audit or some junior misappropriated $10,000, or the information that is disclosed in the audit is revealed in the news to punish people, so if John works at the ministry…and he gives $5,000 to the politician in his community, his boss may refuse him a promotion because he supports an opposition party…which will happen,” Burch-Smith said.
He noted that in small societies such as Guyana, “people find out who you support. Look at Camex. They threatened to destroy his business because he dared to support a party other than the government of the day… every businessman lives in fear of political retribution, so the money is hidden and that allows for abuse and so on”.
On January 7th, Stabroek News reported that Terrence Campbell, Managing Director of CAMEX Ltd., and a founding member of RISE and A New and United Guyana (ANUG), withdrew from both groups. He cited a polarised political climate, and “attacks by my own people.”
Anonymity not an option
On the subject of campaign financing, the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP), headed by Chairman and Presidential Candidate Lenox Shuman, and The Citizenship Initiative (TCI) have both endorsed the need for modern campaign financing legislation.
During a recent press conference, Shuman said “…we have always championed, and we will continue to champion campaign financing legislation… to ensure that every party’s finances are above-board, that they are legitimate, and yes, we do support a cap of the finances that any one person can give because we believe that everyone should be given an equal opportunity to have a voice, and we do not want to pander to special interests….”
Giving some insight into how the party’s operations have been financed since it was launched, Shuman said funds are supplied mainly by “people who give a $5,000 here, a $2,000 there, stuff like that. We have not had any significant contributions.”
Meanwhile, Ruel Johnson, of TCI, had said during the party’s launch that it wanted to make campaign finance legislation the subject of constitutional reform. Johnson had noted that weak campaign finance legislation creates societies in which decisions are influenced by the private interests of persons providing the finances to political parties, and declared that parties which wanted to make donations of a $2,000,000 or higher must agree to have that information shared with the public. “Anonymity is not an option,” Johnson declared.
The LJP has distinguished itself from other smaller parties, and even the larger parties, which have continued to fumble on the subject.
The party has promulgated guidelines concerning how its finances are to be handled, and has made these public. These guidelines are available on the party’s website, and is accompanied by a figure which shows how much funds the party has generated from donations thus far.
Notably, however, there are no legislative requirements for the accounts of the LJP, as is the case with all other parties, to be submitted to a national entity, in the way reports of state finances are submitted to the Auditor General’s Office.
Burch-Smith said that such a measure, which would cover annual financial operations, as opposed to mere finance accumulation and expenditure related to elections, are critical to ensure that political parties are held accountable, and their financial actions made transparent.
