To Reform or Not to Reform…….……

Carolyn Trench-Sandiford – Party Chairman

To Reform, or Not to Reform? That is always a question in politics. But for the People’s United Party, the question is normally what to reform next, as our Party has a history and track record for initiating and embracing reform and change to either create a better life for our people, or to enhance, deepen and broaden our democracy as a Party, and as a nation. Undoubtedly, this is one of the many characteristic that distinguishes us from any other political party in Belize, and what has contributed significantly to our success.

The Organization of American States [OAS] has extended an invitation to me to represent our Party at a two-day workshop in Jamaica to discuss model legislation to regulate political parties and campaign financing in member states. In other words, this is a workshop to discuss legislation for campaign finance reform. Belize, of course, is a member of the OAS.

Campaign finance reform has long been a topic for reformists and those who believe that it is not only a pre-requisite to electing the best possible person to office, but also to prevent the subversion of the national interest by the individual or corporate interest donors, which by extension,  should minimize corruption and mismanagement of public resources.

However, if this is to have any teeth, then it is first necessary to enact legislation with clearly defined mechanisms to regulate the activities of political parties, particularly how they solicit donations. Such legislation would mandate the registration of political parties as a requirement to participating in elections, as well as the processes and procedures to be followed in accessing, managing and spending contributions.

In addition, campaign finance reform legislation is expected to establish limits on the type and quantity of donations, specify who can be a donor, and even whether the donor can be local or international. As well, monitoring and compliance adherence mechanisms would be included, and the penalties for noncompliance stated.

Advocates of campaign finance reform have argued relentlessly that it will facilitate a level playing field for all candidates, as it would cap spending, and consequently provide equal access and representation. According to them, the focus of the attention of the electorate would then be on what the candidate brings to the table, and not on how much they spend in seeking office.

In their view, this can also lead to a fair and transparent election process, as spending power influences the quality of workers, the use of the media and other campaign expenditures in elections, and restrictions would control and make public this information. They also believe that campaign finance reform will contribute to candidates spending more time campaigning, and discussing issues, and not fundraising.

Of course there is always the other side. Those who oppose campaign finance reform argue that political campaign requires money to pay for advertisement, salaries and wages, transportation and the proverbial political patronage, and the candidates must be able to access finance for this purpose.

Also, in countries like Belize where the economy is small, where everyone knows everyone, and opportunities are limited, the requirement of disclosure by corporate donors may not be welcomed, as they may not wish to be seen to be aligned with any political parties, as this can subject them to political victimization, and affect the success of their business. This will undoubtedly stifle contributions.

Thus if the source of funding shrinks, or the playing field is to be leveled by capping or limiting sourcing, then where will the funding come from for election budgets? It has been suggested that taxpayers should foot the bill, either totally or partially. This raises another kind of discussion at a time when political polarization and the distrust of politicians managing public funds is at its highest. And even if tax papers are to foot the bill, what will be the determining factors as to who gets what and how much they get?

As a Party we owe it to commence the process of discussing the pros and cons of this important issue, as it has implications to our democracy. This was a topic at a recent PUP Think-tanking session and the discourse was robust and spirited for both sides of the debate…This debate should also be taking place at all levels of the Party, for it is only if we do this, will the revolution continue….and only so will we be able to create a NEW BELIZE, which will bring to all Belizeans a better life and a just share of the national wealth……

| | | | | |