By Mark DaCosta- In parts 1 and 2 of this series of articles political financing was examined, and it was established that reform of the system is needed in Guyana. In this, the third part of this series, the major shortcomings of the local system will be identified.
First, though, three constraining points must be noted:
This examination is being done based on observations made only of Guyana’s system of political financing, although comparisons with arrangements in other territories are inevitable.
A detailed examination of stated observations and scientific conclusions may be outside of the length constraints and academic scope of this article. That being the case, conclusions may be stated without supporting arguments.
Recommendations for reform may not be emphasised in this third part of this series, instead, the focus will be on problem identification.
Having noted the major constraints, one may move on to thinking about the problems themselves.
Experts say that three big factors influence the number of votes that a candidate gets:
Popularity of the candidate, and his or her policy positions
Campaign strategy
The amount of money spent by the candidate on the campaign
Since the first and second points are irrelevant to this discussion, one may dismiss them from consideration.
The third point, though, must be addressed because it goes directly to whether or not the campaign-field is financially level, and that is the heart of the matter.
The amount of money that a candidate can spend on a campaign depends on three factors:
How much available money the candidate already has.
How much the candidate can raise for the campaign.
How much money the candidate can spend on the campaign.
Only points 2 and 3 are variable; point 1 may be dismissed as the status of the candidate prior to the campaign. As such, one needs to consider how money is raised for the campaign, and spent on it. How can all candidates operate on a level financial field?
There are various approaches to leveling the playing field.
In many territories, external interests are either excluded from influencing campaigns, or, they are constrained to varying degrees.
In some territories, for example, foreign companies – such as big oil conglomerates – may not contribute to political campaigns.
In the United States (US), campaign contributions are controlled by a complex system of limits placed on the size of donations made by various categories of voters and other supporters. Campaign spending is not constrained in the US owing to constitutional provisions in that country.
In Canada, on the other hand, both campaign contributions and spending are constrained.
It is the view of this publication that in Guyana, Canada’s approach to the problem is probably likely to be more effective – both fundraising and campaign spending should be regulated in Guyana.
Guyanese are well familiar the nature of our problems; one has only to look at what happened during the last LGE campaign to identify the issues:
The incumbent PPP apparently used tangible State resources, such as money, to “buy votes,” for example, with the cash grant.
The PPP may have used soft State resources such as vehicles and the media for campaign purposes.
The PPP regime may have coerced people to vote for the ruling party.
The opposition was deliberately and systematically strangled by forces aligned with the ruling regime.
In part 4, the final part of this series, possible solutions to the problem in Guyana will be examined. Also, we need to find out, if the problems in Guyana’s system can be relatively easily identified, why can’t they be fixed?
