Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter in Stabroek News on July 24, 2008 captioned ‘A host of mechanisms were in place to prevent multiple voting in 2006’ in which the nameless writer attempted to make a case for the validity of the list used in the 2006 elections.
My first comment in response is this – too often persons in this society who lack the courage to reveal their identities, (even when their style gives them away), attempt to denigrate the view of others who are not afraid to identify themselves. When the timid speak they very often attempt to offer opinions which they believe cannot be disproved and this occasion is no exception. Unfortunately for them, some of us have a different sense of these developments and we will always hasten to correct these falsehoods when the occasion demands. This response is therefore intended to set the record straight on some of what transpired in the lead-up to the 2006 elections.
Second, in paragraph 2 of the letter the writer stated, “I recall, however, that GECOM personnel went out of the way to perpetually emphasise that a host of mechanisms were in place to prevent multiple voting.” The writer of such fulsome recall wishes the rest of us to develop amnesia and forget that within GECOM itself there were (1) a lot of confusion around the statements made by the chairman of GECOM purportedly on behalf of the commission; and (2) serious disagreements on the readiness and capability of the commission to conduct the elections, including how to deal with the issue of multiple voting. These disagreements were so profound that it led to the temporary withdrawal of three of the commissioners from the commission on at least two occasions, and the eventual resignation of Mr Haslyn Parris, who claimed that he was not prepared to be part of the farce that was being foisted on Guyanese. The flawed declaration of the results which followed the elections and the eventual denial of the AFC of the geographical seat it proved that it had won in Region 10 makes a mockery of the claim that the 2006 elections were the best ever held in Guyana. It is worthy of note that the 2006 elections were the first since Independence where the date of polling day was decided not, as the constitution provides, by the chairman of GECOM but by the President, the leader of the list of a contesting party.
Third, the WPA is strongly of the view that even with a clean voters’ list the presence in the system of those officials with baggage from the past will always militate against the people’s interest. That is why we have always agitated for officials who will inspire confidence in the electors. To the best of our knowledge the present crop of officials in GECOM’s Secretariat are incapable of doing so in spite of what the foreigners say.
Fourth, the writer should understand that those in GECOM who sought to proclaim the purity of the 2006 list now find themselves in a quandary. They must explain why, for the just concluded registration exercise, the commission refused to accept its own document ie the identification card (ID) that was used for the 2006 elections, as a valid source document. The writer should know that it was no less a person than the chairman of GECOM, Dr Steve Surujbally, who gave as his reason for refusing to accept the use of the card in the just concluded registration exercise, even though he was pressured by the government to do so, that it was at the centre of controversy in the lead-up to the 2006 elections and as such there was no way he could agree to its use. Now what does that mean? If Dr Surujbally and the PPP commissioners who were vehemently opposed to verification of the list in the lead-up to the elections were satisfied about its purity and accuracy as they had said they were, they should not have agreed to ignore the ID card as a source document. But because it is apparent that some of those ID cards were not legitimately acquired and by extension the list was padded, they have had to bow to pressure and agree not to recognize them in the new registration exercise. Even if the figure turns out to be less than 100,000, and for the record I wish to reiterate here that the WPA stands by the figures until they are disproved, it was correct to call on GECOM in 2006 to conduct a verification exercise to prove the accuracy of the list. That they refused and refused and refused should tell Guyanese all they need to know. The adage he who pays the piper plays the tune is not lost on the WPA.
The writer must also understand that in the preparatory work for the elections the joint parliamentary opposition parties had cause on several occasions to point out their difficulties and disagreement with a number of initiatives which were taken by the chairman of GECOM that had the propensity for disaster if they were made known to the public. These included the attempt by the chairman of GECOM without reference to some of the commissioners to get the Government of India to agree to the use of their ballot boxes in the 2006 elections. The chairman of GECOM will confirm that I, on behalf of the WPA at a meeting in GECOM’s office, had threatened to go public with the information and I did so in a letter to media houses.
Unfortunately that part of the letter was edited out at the time of its publication.
The nameless writer seems well enough positioned not to be unaware of the dynamics that were at work in the commission at that time. He knows things and should be less shy about what he knows… and who he is.
Yours faithfully,
Desmond Trotman
For WPA Executive Committee
