|
Towards
reform of campaign law
The
meeting between Prime Minister Patrick Manning in his role
as political leader of the ruling People’s National
Movement (PNM) and Harry Harnarine, the CEO of the Hindu
Credit Union (HCU), and the promise of financial assistance
for the PNM’s elections campaign by the HCU have disturbed
ethnic impulses which lie beneath the surface in this multi-ethnic
society.
The official and unofficial reactions, the latter being
circulated in poisoned-pen e-mail without attribution, are
exposing the intention of segments of the society to prevent
political parties from crossing the racial divide.
When the veneer is stripped away from the letters and statements
that have been put into circulation, there is shock and
outrage that the HCU could take the money of Hindus to politically
invest it to assist with the possible re-election of the
PNM, a party that has traditionally had its base amongst
the Afro-T&T population.
The letters and statements go into detail about the ungratefulness,
treachery and disloyalty of Mr Harnarine to people of Indian
descent, to the United National Congress (UNC) and its political
leader, Basdeo Panday.
It is certain that there would have been a similar kind
of reaction had the credit unions based amongst port and
other Afro-Trinidad workers met with Mr Panday and pledged
financial support to the UNC.
The suspicion is that the e-mail messages are being circulated
as part of an organised campaign by institutional interests
and may in fact not be genuine reflections of the feelings
of large numbers of Hindus. If such a suspicion were to
have merit, it would mean that there are those who are peddling
political self-interest to keep the racial antagonisms going.
But such a ploy only succeeds because political leaders,
who govern for years without specific reference to large
segments of the population, are quick to seek alliances
among the out-group in time for an election.
However, the potential racial antagonisms released by the
meeting and promise of finance are only part of the story.
For more than a few elections now, the issue of reforming
the system of how political parties are allowed to raise
funds for their campaigns has been on the agenda.
In a more than comical way, political parties castigate
each other for being in the pocket of “big business”
but continue to do nothing concrete about modernising laws
on campaign finance. And this continues despite the evidence
of the existence of financial contributors who make “investments”
in the full expectation of reaping returns when the particular
party they support gets into office.
Loose discussion on campaign financing must be converted
into proposals for legislative reform, to be followed by
drafts for parliamentary debate.
The proposals must contain measures to allow individuals
and institutions to contribute to the democratic process
in a transparent manner.
As a few have suggested, the discussion must also include
the possibility of parties being allowed a certain level
of funding from the State for their campaigns. And this
is not something unique and innovative; it is part of the
system in the US and other democracies.
The focused discussion to establish campaign laws must also
include limits on how much can be donated by groups and
individuals. The existing limits in the Representation of
the People Act do not coincide with the financial reality
of the day and are flouted without the slightest concern.
These are the nuts and bolts of democracy to which attention
has to be paid.
|
