Crises, corruption and constitutional reform

Aristophanes Duckpond writes: Cayman is at a critical juncture. Caymanians face daily crises that our political processes have created or made worse. Change is needed. This Viewpoint sets out some of the linkages between and among the crises the majority of the electorate faces on a daily basis, political corruption and abuse, and defects in our legislation, including our Constitution.

This Viewpoint also sets out a 15-point proposal for fixing those defects and making it more likely that politicians will prioritise the interests of the electorate rather than their own interests.

We are all familiar with the crises confronting Caymanians and residents on a daily basis, including the constant increases in the cost of housing and everything else, out-of-control development, the destruction of our environment, the declining quality of life, the collapsing infrastructure, ridiculous commuting times, rising crime, imported poverty, the failing education system, the growing garrison-based dependence culture, and the already massive and rapidly increasing debt facing this and future generations. 

These crises have a common source. They are all to some extent, directly or indirectly the result of politicians and the special interests that own too many of them, abusing the power given to politicians by the electorate in order to pursue their own interests rather than the interests of the electorate. Any use of governmental power other than for the betterment of these Islands and the electorate is corrupt.

Corrupt politicians grow richer and more powerful by buying elections, then using their political power and defects in our Constitution and legislation to abolish or circumvent the laws that were designed to protect us from their abuse. Once elected, corrupt politicians and those that facilitate corruption are in a position to sell favourable decisions to the special interests at our expense.

Corrupt politicians don’t even need to be in the majority in Parliament. All that they need is a sufficient number of weak politicians who facilitate those that are corrupt by simply doing little or nothing to stop them, and too frequently, by agreeing to work with them to gain power and money for themselves.

We need constitutional change. We need our Constitution to obviate the corrupt abuse of power by politicians and to ensure that the interests of politicians are firmly and permanently tied to the interests of the electorate.

We need a Constitutional provision that will permanently tie the pay of our elected politicians to the income of average Caymanians. That is the only way that we can be assured that politicians will understand our situations and work in our interests.

We also need to eliminate the present situation in which politicians elected on the basis of a few bought votes in tiny constituencies can horse trade to create governments which only make politicians and the special interest groups richer while the rest of us become poorer in every way. We need a system in which our government is elected directly by the people without the possibility of political horse-trading leading to bought governments.

The constitutional change that we need will only occur if it is forced on politicians and the special interest groups that control them by a binding People-Initiated Referendum.

The following are my suggestions for Constitutional and other legislative provisions that will better align the interests of politicians with those of the electorate.

1. Parliament would continue to have 19 members in total. Each elector would get two votes: one national vote and one district vote. Thirteen Members of Parliament would be elected by way of a national vote involving all electors on all three Cayman Islands. An additional six MPs would be district representatives elected by electors in each of the five districts on Grand Cayman, plus one MP who would be elected by the electors on the Sister Islands. 
   
   One of the advantages of a national vote is that it makes election buying more expensive and therefore less likely, particularly when campaign finance restrictions also exist.
   
   
2. Cabinet would to be comprised of the seven MPs who secured the greatest number of votes in the national vote plus two non-voting official members (as is the case today). A majority of MPs would be required to approve the ministries assigned to the Cabinet members.
   
   
3. Campaign finance restrictions designed to weaken the role of special interests would be locked into the Constitution. Election campaign and related contributions to any person seeking elected office, whether in cash or otherwise, would be fully documented and completely transparent, would only be permitted by registered electors, and would be limited to a maximum of $1,000 per contributor per election cycle.
   
   Contributions, whether in cash or otherwise, in excess of that maximum would be criminalised. Contributions in any form from entities other than registered voters, whether direct or indirect, would be criminalised.
   
   
4. The total remuneration of elected MPs for all government-related activities would be set based on the median annual income of electors. By way of suggestion, the total remuneration of each Cabinet member, including all perks, should not exceed 2.5 times the median annual income of electors, and the total remuneration of other MPs, including all perks, should not exceed 2.0 times the median income of electors.
   
   Remuneration for ‘counsellors’ would be eliminated. Retired parliamentarians who have served at least 16 years in Parliament would be permitted an annual pension that should not exceed 1.0 times the median income of electors, and any such pension would vest only after the retired politician reached the age of 65 and undertook not to seek re-election. No more double dipping.
   
   
5. In order to minimise corruption, all payments and other benefits paid directly or indirectly to or for the direct or indirect benefit of any MP (including family and other related parties), whether in cash or otherwise, would be recorded in a publicly available register and made completely transparent. In this regard, beneficial ownership transparency in relation to land registry transactions involving politicians and politically exposed persons would be enhanced and made mandatory.
   
   No more free condos for politicians selling out the country.
   
   
6. Contravention of any provision designed to prevent corruption involving a politician would carry a severe criminal penalty based on criminal prosecution standards plus a separately determined and applied inflation-adjusted civil penalty of at least a million dollars adjudicated on the basis of civil prosecution standards and payable by the corrupt person.
   
   Whistleblowers who provide evidence of political corruption leading to a judicial finding of civil liability in relation to corruption would be entitled to a payout of the entirety of the million dollar plus civil penalty imposed for civil political corruption. 
   
   
7. All payments from public coffers to or for the direct or indirect benefit of elected MPs should be fully accounted for. The $5,000 per month of public money that is currently paid to MPs without any accountability should be stopped in order to limit the potential for vote buying paid for from public funds.
   
   
8. All payments, whether in cash or in kind, by or on behalf of any MP directly or indirectly to or for the benefit of any elector should be recorded in a fully transparent public register and should be legally presumed to constitute criminal vote buying unless the contrary is proved.
   
   
9. Cabinet authority should be limited to the setting, coordination and monitoring of government policy. That is the proper role for Cabinet.
   
   
10. Cabinet should be prohibited from participating in any manner in negotiations and/or decisions regarding any contracts or arrangements with any private sector entity, any duty waivers or similar inducements, and also prohibited from participating in any other matter in which the exercise of a political decision could potentially be bought.
    
    
11. Cabinet should be prohibited from acting as an appellate body in relation to the decisions of any statutory board or authority or in any other quasi-judicial capacity in any matter. At present members of Cabinet have far too much salable discretion and insufficient competence.
    
    
12. No MP should have any direct or indirect involvement in the selection of board members of any statutory authority or government company, specifically and expressly including the Central Planning Authority and the Development Control Board. No member of any statutory authority or government company should have any direct or indirect economic interests in any business sector related to the activities of the board to which they are appointed.
    
    The total remuneration of board members on all statutory authorities and government companies, whether in cash or otherwise, should be completely transparent and should be on a per hour basis limited to a maximum equivalent to the hourly income of the average elector.
    
    No board member of any statutory authority or government company should be permitted to have any real, potential or perceived conflict of economic interest in relation to the decisions of any such statutory authority or government company on which they serve.
    
    
13. All candidates for election to Parliament should be required to also submit at the time of submitting their nomination papers a detailed coherent manifesto setting out their qualifications, intended policies and intended legislative priorities if elected. Hopefully that would make it easier for the electorate to evaluate candidates.
    
    
14. Legislation that has been captured by or is aligned with any special interest to any degree and now works against the interests of ordinary Caymanians, such as the Development and Planning Act and Regulations, should be repealed and replaced by legislation that works in the interests of all Caymanians.
    
    
15. Members of Parliament should be required to take an oath of office prior to taking office, swearing to comply with the Constitution and all other laws in effect in the Cayman Islands with a further provision to the effect that breach of that oath would lead to termination of office and a permanent prohibition in relation to being elected to Parliament thereafter.
    
    At present, the Cabinet Code of Conduct only requires Cabinet Members to comply with laws that they think are relevant to them on any given day.

These suggestions are neither perfect nor the complete solution, but dialogue and much-needed change have to begin somewhere. 

I am sure that others will identify additional constitutional and legislative changes that are desperately needed in Cayman.  Please make your suggestions known.

Each of the above suggestions, and any others settled on by the sponsors of a people-initiated referendum (PIR), should form the basis for legally separate ‘stand-alone’ referendum questions that should be put to the electorate at the earliest opportunity. That will ensure that the electorate has choices and that the potential for improving our country is optimised.

Corrupt politicians and the special interests that own them will strenuously oppose all these ideas and any other measure that might make Cayman a better democracy. Honest politicians pursuing the interests of Caymanians have nothing to fear.

Hopefully, Caymanians and others who love Cayman and who understand how to design and implement a legally binding people-initiated referendum as set out in Section 70 of the Constitution will step forward to help build a better Cayman Islands in which politicians work for the benefit of all of us rather than just the special interests that currently dominate politics in Cayman.