Peter Espeut | Campaigning with public funds

One of the important principles of public probity is that public funds should not be mingled with those of the ruling political party, and that taxpayers money should not be used to cover party political expenses, including the financing of election campaigns. Political parties must raise funds from their membership or solicit donations from private sources to cover their operating expenses, and to defray the huge costs of campaigning for local and general elections.

If it can be shown that funds from the national budget are being expended in party political campaigning for the government side (or the opposition side), then political corruption will have been exposed. Those responsible should be brought to book, and the misappropriated funds should be returned to the state to be used for proper purposes, e.g. the funding of health, education, etc.

The governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) party seems to recognise that this is a problem. On June 5, Nationwide News published a story (check their website) stating that the JLP has “formally accused the People’s National Party, PNP-controlled Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation, KSAMC, of operating a scheme where public funds are used to finance the campaign activities of PNP caretakers and candidates”. If the allegation has substance, then the PNP is guilty of political corruption, and the guilty individuals and their suborning bosses must be placed before the courts, and the misappropriated funds must be returned to the coffers of the KSAMC.

But it may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I wonder whether the hundreds of millions spent by the Office of the Prime Minister and almost every government ministry and department (even the Bureau of Standards) buying air time to broadcast slick ads and jingles telling the electorate what a wonderful job they are doing, is also an instance “where public funds are used to finance the campaign activities” of the governing party.

IMPORTANT PART

The state institution entrusted with the task of ensuring that public funds are not used for improper purposes is the Office of the Auditor General (OAG). This makes the OAG an important part of the anti-corruption apparatus of the nation. If the OAG does its job efficiently, then this kind of malfeasance will be detected, and this aspect of integrity in public governance will be assured. It stands to reason that those who wish malfeasance to remain undiscovered will seek to prevent the OAG from doing its work.

The best campaign advertisement for an impending election is a job well done, and that is what public funds are supposed to be used to achieve. Taxpayer dollars are well spent when they fund schools that teach not just basic literacy and numeracy but critical thinking skills, and important life-enriching knowledge. A government that uses its budgetary resources to maintain the national roadways, and to provide well-equipped and staffed hospitals, health centres and emergency services, will manifestly and patently demand re-election.

It is when the national infrastructure is ramshackle, and the services provided to the public are poor or marginal, that the government has to hire public relations experts to try to convince the electorate that a sow’s ear is really a silk purse.

But the moral question is: who is to pay for these public relations experts? And the cost of producing the advertisements, and airing them over commercial media? Is this a legitimate cost of good management of a government ministry or department? Or good governance of a free and democratic nation? Or is this properly part of election campaigning, which should be paid for by the party seeking re-election?

I remember some decades ago the party in opposition (the one presently in power) complained that government vehicles (and government gasoline) were used on election day to transport supporters of the then government to their polling stations. That was fair comment then! But I do not expect either party today to raise this issue, because no matter on which foot the shoe is on, we can expect the same behaviour.

SUFFICIENT DATA

Surely any Jamaican exposed to the public media will have sufficient data to convince themselves of the daily, hourly misuse of public funds which passes for government advertising – including outside broadcasts – to showcase government initiatives. I expect civil society – and especially the anti-corruption watchdogs – to raise their voices in protest!

And I expect the Office of the Auditor General to come out with a report assessing the amount of public funds expended in partisan political campaigning across the public sector, with recommendations for charges to be laid.

Of course, press releases are not as costly to produce as public relations and promotional material, but they come out thick and fast. I don’t know how the media houses keep up! Literally every day the police issue press releases telling is that murders are down – parish by parish, police division by police division, even ZOSO by ZOSO. No doubts the police killings of alleged gunmen have sent many into hiding; and maybe we have dropped a few places in the global murder ranking,

But these good-news press releases appear alongside reports of gruesome murders. Clearly the root causes of violence are not being addressed.

In the mean time, the huge finds of arms and ammunition at the ports and elsewhere suggest that some person or persons or groups are arming themselves towards the future. We seize the munitions, but the importers remain at large, plotting to be more successful next time. Our security forces have been notoriously unsuccessful in bringing to book the high-ups who have armed political gangs, and those who perpetrate extortion and intimidation in political garrison communities.

Crime continues – white collar, blue collar, and with political colours.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com