You don’t have to admire Winston Churchill, or his hypocrisy over who deserved this form of government, to embrace the essential truth of his observation about democracy.
“Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe,” Sir Winston said in a speech in the British Commons 79 years ago this month. “No one pretends that democracy is all-wise.
“Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
This newspaper believes that the sentiment holds true for the vast majority of Jamaicans, even if they don’t always actively participate in the formal processes of democracy. Yet, they want the system to survive; to be fit, ready and available to respond to their needs when they require it to do so.
However, democracy has to be worked at; kept well oiled, and its overseers vigilant against backsliding. A key part of this exercise is ensuring that elections, the critical foundation upon which democracy sits, are free and fair, and that those who live in what is supposed to be a liberal democracy are clear about what separates it from “the many forms of government that have been tried and will be tried”.
EXPRESSES CONCERN
It is against this backdrop that The Gleaner’s Editorial Board, too, expresses its concern about the funding problems being experienced by the organisation, Citizens Action for Free and Fair Elections (CAFFE), and joins those who have suggested that the Jamaican government should provide the organisation with an annual, no-strings-attached subvention, framed in an airtight agreement. Indeed, this subvention could possibly be from a ‘Democracy Fund’, voted annually by Parliament, overseen by an independent board, and available to organisations that promote democracy, once they meet specific criteria.
Such a system would not be far removed from, or dissimilar to, the parliamentary-approved, but not yet implemented, scheme for state funding of registered political parties and elections, once parties and candidates adhere to specific rules.
However, this ought not be the only arrangement to ensure long-term, sustainable funding for organisations like CAFFE that help, outside the state’s mechanisms, to police elections so that citizens can have confidence in their outcomes. Ordinary Jamaicans, as well as the island’s private sector, have a stake in democracy and the electoral process and should be willing to financially contribute to their maintenance outside of the proposed collective basis as taxpayers.
Formed in 1997, CAFFE, an independent NGO, has monitored seven general elections and at least 15 parliamentary by-elections since then. It has also done so in four municipal general elections and several by-elections for municipal seats. Its work has made a difference.
EXTERNAL FUNDING
Until recently, CAFFE, like most of Jamaica’s civil society organisations, has been maintained primarily on external funding to sustain its activities. The US Agency for International Development (USAID), especially, was a critical benefactor. But American money has largely dried up since Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency and, in keeping with his directly transactional foreign policy, he has slashed funding to overseas projects for which he does not see a hard cash return, or where the recipients don’t show direct obeisance to the US president. The US fallout is coincidental with reduced foreign aid outlays by other countries, especially for the projection of soft power.
Grace Baston, CAFFE’s chairman, explained recently that it was always difficult between elections, outside the immediacy of election monitoring, to raise funding for its education programmes, including maintaining democracy clubs in schools, where students learned the value of democracy. Some became CAFFE election monitors.
Such projects are significant, given low voter participation in Jamaican elections (39.96 per cent in the September 2025 general election) and a fear of a deepening cynicism, especially among young voters. In that regard, voter/democracy education and election monitoring are vital.
It is in this context that the Editorial Board believes it to be important that organisations like CAFFE should be taken off the treadmill in the search for funding for their projects. The private sector can help by securing, in addition to what may come via the Consolidated Fund, a financing window.
The system that helps to ensure the financial independence of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is a good model that could be adopted and tweaked to serve CAFFE’s circumstances.
Before the launch of the CCJ, Caribbean governments established a US$100 million trust fund for the court, the profits from which finance the court’s operations. CAFFE would need only a minuscule fraction of that amount to have the returns to sustain its activities.
Private sector firms could contribute to a CAFFE trust fund, receiving tax credits for their participation. CAFFE should also become aggressive in fundraising schemes from citizens, borrowing from the regimes used by other organisations that need money.
Democracy may indeed be the best form of government, but it also comes with a price.
