Dear Editor,
It is not in the modus operandi of the Guyana Elections Commission to respond to every bit of abuse and malignancy directed at the Commission and its Secretariat. We recognize that grandstanding and politicking are integral components of the functions of politicians, albeit not the most endearing or profound aspects of their activity.
However, when the utterances are misleading, deceiving and have the end effect of creating doubt and confusion, we feel duty bound to negate the false impressions created.
Recently, senior representatives of political parties represented in the National Assembly have been commenting that GECOM had not commenced educating electors about the upcoming elections. Of course this statement is untrue. We must point out that it was a conscious decision by the Commission to focus on the sequel to registration undertakings, namely, (i) the preparation of the National Register of Registrants, (ii) the distribution of national ID cards, (iii) the preparation of the Preliminary List of Voters, (iv) the conduct of the Claims and Objections exercise, and (v) the production and re-issuance of some ID cards which were withdrawn because the photographs of same did not find favour with some registrants.
Especially where the Claims and Objections exercise is concerned, there are several elements about which the electorate needed to be informed. Indeed, it would have been counterproductive to simultaneously clutter people’s minds with the complexities inherent in the new system for the local government elections, while burdening the citizens with the copious information associated with, say, ‘Claims and Objections.’
The Commission remains convinced that the mixed electoral system for the local government elections is so complex and complicated that it warrants a very specific focus. Apropos, it was decided that as the Claims and Objections exercise winds down, we will commence educating the public about the local government elections by sharing the least confusing aspects of the new electoral system with the public. That is why citizens and the complaining political parties would have seen specific notices relating to the local government elections, even before the conclusion of the Claims and Objections exercise. In fact, it is ironic, even tragi-comic, that exactly on those days when the political parties’ leaders were petulantly throwing barbs, the newspapers were publishing GECOM’s advertisements carrying important information about the electoral system for the local government elections.
Let it be also known that all of the manuals pertaining to all facets of the local government elections have already been prepared; the training of staff has already commenced, and the basic texts for the various advertisements, skits, mobile theatrical caravans, panel discussions, etc, have been completed and are undergoing current review. Registration officers and electoral registrars have been educated on the specificities pertaining to the mixed electoral system. With this knowledge they are adequately equipped to conduct public education sessions targeting the electors within the respective local authority areas in keeping with the policy of the Commission.
GECOM has, as a deliberate and integral part of its voter education drive, already conducted simultaneous public sessions at the City Hall, Georgetown; Town Hall, New Amsterdam; and Town Hall, Anna Regina on Friday, January 29, 2010. Like these, many more such activities are planned so as to ensure that the public will be exposed to all the complex issues pertaining to the local authority elections.
Let it be further known that the preparations for the local government elections are well on track and we have already allocated, according to plan, ample amounts of time to explain the new system to the electorate.
It is vital that we use this opportunity to address specifically the most recent comments made by Mr Raphael Trotman at a media conference hosted by the Alliance For Change (AFC) on Wednesday, February 2, 2010 vis-à-vis “…apart from the occasional package being delivered to our offices by GECOM, the AFC is completely kept in the dark about the progress being made with respect to new registrations, Claims and Objections and the uplifting of ID cards, and preparations for local government elections generally. We believe that as a national stakeholder, we are entitled to be placed on a level playing field and dealt with in the same manner as others are. We are reliably informed that other parties are regularly briefed so we again point out obvious discriminating practices being meted out to the AFC.”
In view of these comments, all concerned stakeholders must take note of the following:-
1. GECOM does not treat selectively with any political party.
2. GECOM has an open door policy where the provision of information regarding the policies and activities of the Commission and its Secretariat are concerned.
3. GECOM never kept, nor harbours intentions of keeping, the AFC or any other stakeholder – political party or otherwise – in the dark with respect to new registrations, Claims and Objections and the uplifting of ID cards.
4. Scrutineers representing the opposition political parties in Parliament monitor and record data pertaining to the distribution of ID cards as well as the entire Claims and Objections process. The AFC is a bona fide member of this opposition grouping. It follows that the AFC has access to the relevant data collected by the scrutineers. Further, it must be made abundantly clear that GECOM has not to date released any statistics or any other information pertaining to the distribution of ID cards or the Claims and Objections exercise. The Commission will so do upon the conclusion of this exercise.
5. GECOM issued a media release titled ‘GECOM Addressing ID Card Concerns,’ on 18.12.2009. Surely the AFC would have been privy to the contents of this release.
6. The Commission last met with senior representatives of the AFC and the Guyana Action Party-Rise Organize And Rebuild (GAP-ROAR) on Tuesday, November 24, 2009. The AFC and GAP-ROAR team had comprised Mr Raphael Trotman, Leader; Mr A Griffith, Chief Scrutineer; Mr Clayton Hall; Mr David Patterson; and Mr Martin Cheong, all of the AFC; and Mr Everall Franklin of GAP-ROAR. Dr Steve Surujbally, Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) had given the assurance at this meeting that the Commission recognizes the AFC and the GAP-ROAR as legitimate components of the combined opposition political parties in Parliament, and that GECOM had never and will never treat these two entities with bias either collectively or individually. Further, he had emphasized that improving relationships is a two-way course, and that comments from the AFC regarding GECOM must be based on truth.
7. GECOM met with representatives of the combined opposition parliamentary political parties on Friday, July 10, 2009. The PNCR was represented by Mr Oscar Clarke, Mr Lance Carberry, Mr Allan Munroe and Ms Amna Ally. The AFC was represented by Mr Michael Carrington and Mr David Patterson, while GAP/ROAR was represented by Mr Everall Franklin.
8. GECOM met on Wednesday, August 26, 2009, with representatives of the existing political parties’ representatives of ten political parties to apprise them of the principles which will serve to inform the delimitation process leading up to the establishment of constituencies for local government elections. The AFC was among the political parties invited to participate at this meeting.
9. GECOM hosted a National Consultation on Delimitation of Constituencies for Local Government Elections on Friday, November 13, 2009, at the Carifesta Sports Club (Guyana National Service Sports Complex), Carifesta Avenue, Georgetown. The AFC was represented at this consultation.
10. Since GECOM last met with senior representatives of the AFC and GAP-ROAR on Tuesday, November 24, 2009, the Commission has not met with any other parliamentary political parties either individually or collectively, a fact which belies the AFC’s claim.
As regards the AFC’s statement that “Local Government Elections that are scheduled for April, 2010,” it is essential to note that GECOM has not made any official statement pertaining to any scheduled date for the local government elections. GECOM has the responsibility to inform the Minister of Local Government about the Commission’s state of preparedness and about a date on which local government elections could be held. They would so do at the appropriate time. Thereafter, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Local Government to appoint a date for the holding of local government elections.
Actually, it is quite shameless for politicians to be questioning GECOM’s activity when they very well know about our efforts. But then again, this behaviour is not novel.
Yours faithfully,
Steve Surujbally
ChairmanGECOM
