CONCERN ABOUT vote buying is real, not imagined, even though politicians do not feel able to admit of its reality in public.
And when they do so, it is to cast aspersions on the other side of the political fence, when it is known that the practice reaches across the divide.
Truth be told, it is illegal but it has crept into the political space as part of the practice of competitive politics. So why is it so prevalent?
The game of politics is a winner-take-all exercise and being in government is the sole objective of a political party. The difference between achieving that objective or not is at least five years, which is a long time to wait for another chance at the prize.
While the cost of buying a vote has gone up significantly, there is no denying that the intent was around for some time, even if it were pejoratively described as corned beef and biscuit politics.
One can surmise that the price of a vote has outstripped the increases in cost of living over the years. But isn’t there a substantial difference between participating in a corned beef and biscuit feast and requesting/accepting money for a vote, from a cultural perspective?
The gathering of the men at a village rum shop to socialise creates an environment of sharing. It is expected that once you participate, you will buy a round of drinks or contribute to laying a foundation to absorb any liquids consumed in the process of socialising.
Corned beef and biscuit politics carried a connotation associated with the poor and a particular social environment of deprivation. It would have been a deprecating way of capturing the plight of the poor by using the imagery of corned beef.
It is, however, understandable that a politician, who after all is seeking to be a representative, may feel the need to be part of such a gathering in the course of campaigning. There is, therefore, a cultural dimension to corned beef and biscuit politics that in no way can be compared with the more recent method of vote buying.
The use of money is far less conspicuous, which means that it could go beyond the poor, reaching up to the working poor and much higher.
But apart from the cultural dimension, corned beef and biscuit politics was certainly not as expensive as the current method. This raises the question of where would politicians, who were not known for their wealth prior to elective politics, get the money to engage in vote buying? The finger points to the private sector that recently raised its concerns through a group led by two prominent businessmen.
The source of the funding may be known, and there are obvious questions: why would the business community be involved? And how would the money get to the voters since it is illegal?
The answer to the first question occupies the attention of several learned scholars and institutions worldwide.
But there is still not full consensus on how political campaigns ought to be financed and by whom. There will hardly ever be consensus because it is a problem that collides with the moral fabric of several societies and yet it coexists with the free enterprise spirit in those same societies.
Perhaps the real interest from a parochial perspective is the nature of the vote trading. Politicians use their chosen and trusted bag-men to distribute the money in accordance with their clearly stated objective of winning the seat; a process that may start sometime before election day but intensifies exponentially on the day.
The passing of money may be a direct debit in the sense that the politician or his agent may engage in the payment of bills such as electricity, water and any other utility or service for a household or a person. This practice is an extension of what is carried out in some public sector departments under the label of social welfare programmes.
Some years ago, politicians gave themselves a constituency allowance that was to be used to assist in some parochial welfare functions but there was no system of accountability to identify its use.
It was effectively a clever way of increasing the salaries of Members of Parliament, which is the same allowance to which Prime Minister Freundel Stuart recently alluded with a promise of an increase.
On election day, most of the vote buying/selling occurs in the vehicles as voters are transported to the polling stations. Unfortunately, the practice is not limited to the youth or the poor.
This is why increasing emphasis is placed on providing transportation to the stations even though they are well within walking distance.
The illegality of vote buying, unlike corned beef and biscuit politics, makes it exceedingly difficult to confirm and prosecute because the voter knows that it is wrong and will not admit to receiving money and the politician sees it as an opportunity to gamble with other people’s money.
The real question is: what is the owner of the money hoping to gain?
The answer will unlock the real struggle for power and influence in small parliamentary democracies where minor philosophical differences between the political parties may be measured by their true relationships with the owners of capital and labour.
• Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent. Email: albertbrandford@nationnews.com