One man’s vote buying: Another man’s campaign donation
IN JAMAICA, the outcry against corruption typically takes the form of complaints about government officials dipping into the public till. The familiar echoes of frustration and discontent at the vast sums of money being diverted from the public purse for personal gain and the betrayal of public trust amid challenging economic times, seem to fall on perpetually deaf ears as our love affair with corruption continues.
What I found interesting coming out of the recent local government elections is the seeming comfort that some of us have found ourselves in with the other forms of life that corruption takes. “I want my 10 grand for my vote” was one of the viral clips coming out of the festivities, as a young woman proudly proclaimed and defended her right to sell her franchaise.
Many of us vocalise vehement objections to the pervasive corruption in our midst, yet our actions rarely transcend beyond typing out grievances on Twitter, or X or whatever it’s called nowadays. Perhaps it’s a case of ‘monkey see, monkey do’, given that corruption persists unabated and public officials amass wealth and extravagant purchases incongruous with their salaries.
When we begin to normalise corruption by rationalising entitlement based on our socioeconomic status, however, we are setting a dangerous precedent and perpetuating a cycle of malfeasance.
A CRATE OF GUINNESS
Sure, I get it that some see the 10 grand gained from the sale of their vote as possibly the only thing that they will get from politicians. Equally disheartening is the complicity of the beneficiaries who turn a blind eye one moment, then talk about the integrity of our democratic process in the next. But when vote buying becomes established as just another aspect of our unique Jamaican culture, our politicians are given a pass and acquire power based on the purchasing power of their pocket, and not by their performance and fulfilment of promises.
Some might argue that vote buying is just a little incentive or a token of appreciation for exercising one’s democratic right given that either way, they would have been voting for that party. But in reality, we are merely reducing the sanctity of our vote for a few dollars, a crate of Guinness and some yards of sand. From the promise of brand new refrigerators to the delivery of goats and chickens, our politicians have truly outdone themselves in the art of persuasion. But votes are not commodities to be bartered and traded. They are the very essence of our democracy and should be treated with the utmost respect.
ENTITLED
The crux of the problem lies in the belief among voters that they are entitled to these bribes, thereby distorting the sanctity of their vote. It’s not even something to be ashamed of anymore. But if a vote can be so easily sold to the highest bidder, then true democracy is undermined, with severe repercussions for society.
Some enterprising politicians have fought back, encouraging their supporters to “nyam dem out and vote dem out”. But in doing so, I believe that we are downplaying the severity of vote buying and therefore doing more to support it tacitly.
Now one may ask, am I unfairly targeting the little man who sold his vote for a couple of goats, when in reality, he’s no different from the big donors who contribute lavishly to political campaigns? After all, aren’t they one and the same?
It’s a question I’ve struggled with at times, given the transactional nature of both. They each involve an exchange of resources for political support and the expectation of advancing their interests or agendas. Similarly, aren’t candidates or their representatives offering incentives in exchange for their votes? In essence, both practices entail a form of transactional politics where resources are exchanged for political influence. So why pressure the little man?
DOUBLE STANDARDS
Perhaps this is because we have developed, over time, a certain double standard when dealing with crimes committed by rich folks versus those who live below Cross Roads. Campaign donations are dominated by wealthy individuals, corporations, or interest groups who wield significant financial resources and influence over the political process. They are usually the demigods of society with considerable power and reach. Vote buying, on the other hand, is seen as a despicable practice carried out by lowlifes and degenerates who don’t appreciate the sanctity of their vote.
Campaign donations are therefore perfectly legal and regulated while vote buying is condemned as electoral fraud and bribery. I agree, though, that in many respects, and from a pragmatic standpoint, both practices are mirror images of each other, involving the navigation and intersection of money, politics and influence.
Obviously, the two differ in their legality, context, and perceived legitimacy, and share certain fundamental characteristics as forms of transactional politics. For this reason, I believe that vote buying will be extremely difficult to stamp out. Perhaps, however, we may start to rethink our laws and practices around campaign financing and the need for effective regulation and oversight of our democratic processes, as a first step towards stamping out one, and making the other more in line with the principles of a truly democratic society.
Major Basil Jarrett is a communications strategist and CEO of Artemis Consulting, a communications consulting firm specialising in crisis communications and reputation management. Follow him on Twitter, Instagram, Threads @IamBasilJarrett and linkedin.com/in/basiljarrett. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com