Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter written by Emile Mervin titled ‘Did GECOM jump the gun and say it was ready for local gov’t polls?’ which was published in the Stabroek News of March 26.
It is amazing to observe the lengths that some persons would go to unjustifiably castigate others while carefully giving shelter to those to whom they are favourable and whom they feel that they must protect by any means whatsoever, even if this means unfairly, incorrectly and unconscionably deflecting blame.
Many of the points documented in Mr Mervin’s letter are devoid of common sense. They are at best speculative and at worst illogical. Here are some examples.
1. Referring to GECOM Chairman, Dr Steve Surujbally’s declaration that GECOM cannot and must not be held responsible for the delay of local government elections, (‘Delay in local government polls not financially feasible,’ SN, March 25), Mr Mervin takes the position that this may not be entirely true if GECOM, as an independent entity charged with responsibility for preparing and staging elections in accordance with its constitutional mandate, could have taken legal steps during Dr Surujbally’s tenure to have the government and all registered political parties expedite local government legislative reforms. Note the emphasis on the “may” and “if” which Mr Mervin used to make his (non) point. Perhaps he would like to explain for the benefit of all concerned what legal or administrative steps GECOM could have taken “to have the government and all registered political parties expedite local government legislative reforms.” My recollection is that Dr Surujbally had continuously reported via the media that GECOM had made overtures to be represented at the level of the Joint Task Force for Local Government Reforms, even if only as an observer. This never happened, but went conveniently unnoticed by Mr Mervin.
2. Mr Mervin posited that GECOM “sat and waited on government and the parties” instead, of taking legal action aimed at bringing the outstanding local government reforms to reality. Consequently, the commission should be held responsible for this not happening. Perhaps Mr Mervin should tell us what would be GECOM’s locus standi to so do and under what legislation this could have been done by the commission.
3. Mr Mervin articulated that “in the context of separation of powers, I believe all independent government institutions should resort to the court if or when the executive branch is not doing its part in helping these institutions to do their job effectively and on schedule, whether through running political interference or underfunding.” I fail to understand how this statement would apply when there is concurrence among the political parties in Parliament and the government that one more attempt would be made to bring the outstanding reforms to closure.
4. With respect to the credibility of GECOM, this overseas based commentator needs only to reflect on all aspects of the 2006 elections, which were (a) accepted by Mr Robert Corbin, (b) hailed by all local and international observers as having been conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner, and (c) which were the only elections in the history of the country not to have been marred by violence.
5. With respect to Dr Surujbally’s statement that “GECOM cannot be unmindful of the concerns expressed by the parliamentary opposition parties as well as the indication that government is open to considering the demands for closure on the outstanding legislation reforms prior to the local elections,” I view this as an acknowledgement by the commission’s Chairman that there is nothing the commission can do but halt its preparations for the local government elections. No doubt, to do otherwise would have been a further waste of resources. How can this not be apparent to Mr Mervin?
6. Dr Surujbally made it clear to the media that the commission was on schedule in so far as implementation of the relevant plans for the holding of local government elections was concerned. This is quite opposed to Mr Mervin’s query vis-à-vis “did GECOM jump the gun and say it was ready for LG Elections, probably because the government said it was, without first consulting with the political opposition to know if they were ready?”
7. Like me, Mr Mervin could have visited the website of the Parliament of Guyana and found that Section 35 (1) of the Local Authorities (Elections) Act, Chapter 28:03 clearly empowers the Minister of Local Government to appoint a day for the holding of local government elections.
8. With respect to Mr Mervin’s position that “leaving the date setting to the Minister could be a political disaster for GECOM, because the Minister can then delay the date until such a time the ruling party and its government are satisfied they are capable of pulling off a sweep,” the response can only be that it is quite clear that Mr Mervin believes that GECOM is a political organisation, which it is not. The fact remains that GECOM is responsible for administering elections, but has no legal authority to decide if and when they are held.
9. Lastly, Mr Mervin must know that the combined opposition political parties in Parliament, which are led by Mr Robert Corbin as leader of the PNCR and the Opposition Leader, appointed scrutineers to work for the Claims and Objections exercise in preparation for the local government elections. How come he did not reprimand Mr Corbin or any of the other opposition leaders for having participated in this process, knowing fully well that the very reforms in question had not as yet been addressed? Is he being selectively protective of opposition forces?
Like Mr Mervin, I too am a spectator to the political processes in Guyana. As a bystander there is only one contribution that I can make to bring about political change, ie, by voting for the party of my choice. But I will always aspire to do so with an open-minded approach. I will never seek to give the impression that I am on the moral ‘high ground’ purporting to promote the best for my country, while my public pronouncements reek of double standards.
Yours faithfully,
Pandit Chrishna Persaud