Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter penned by Mr Sixtus Edwards which was published in the Kaieteur News of Thursday, February 12 under the caption ‘AFC looks forward to a stronger partnership with GECOM.’
Firstly, Mr Edwards stated: “ …the Alliance for Change (AFC) is not the enemy of GECOM; we are partners in the process of holding free and fair elections in 2011.”
In this regard, let me state that Gecom does not consider the AFC or any other stakeholder to be enemies. I must recall for the benefit of Mr Edwards and the reading public that at the last meeting between Gecom and the AFC leadership, Dr Steve Surujbally, Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom) had given the assurance that the commission recognizes the AFC as a legitimate component of the combined opposition political parties in Parliament, and that it had never and will never treat the AFC with bias. Further, Dr Surujbally had emphasized that improving relationships is a two way course, and that comments from the AFC regarding Gecom must be based on truth.
Moreover, the Gecom Chairman wrote a letter dated January 3, 2011, to Mr Raphael Trotman in the latter’s capacity as Leader of the AFC, indicating among other things that Gecom is cognizant of the value of working in a consultative manner with all of the key stakeholders in the upcoming general and regional elections. Dr Surujbally had taken that opportunity to renew Gecom’s commitment to engage the AFC via a two-way communications process in keeping with the commission’s policy of inclusiveness.
Secondly, Mr Edwards wrote: “ … we have concerns that not enough is being done to get the unregistered – registered.”
I must firstly draw attention to Mr Edwards’s acknowledgement of my statement that Gecom is aware that there are thousands of young people who would be of voting age, with respect to the upcoming elections, who could not apply for registration because they were/are not in possession of birth certificates, since their births were never registered. Notwithstanding the welcome signal of intervention, which quite recently came from President Bharrat Jagdeo, to address this matter, we stand by our position that to date, our representations have not borne the desired fruits. Gecom has no responsibility where the registration of births under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, Chapter 44:01 is concerned. The General Register Office is the sole entity that is charged with the responsibility to register births in Guyana. In view of our actions in this matter, it must be clear that Gecom has been doing, and will continue to do, all that is possible to bring about an acceptable solution to the problem within the realms of the commission’s authority and capability – legal and otherwise.
Thirdly, Mr Edwards went on to say: “The issues Mr. Atkinson raised are a valid concern of ours. What Mr. Atkinson raised was confirmed by others in the area, so somebody must be misleading GECOM, but that is expected in any bureaucracy. Some people in any system have to justify their existence… So why object to Mr. Atkinson, he is on to something, isn’t he?”
Whether Mr Atkinson is on to something is moot. However, it is simply because we recognize the AFC as a bona fide political party that the concerns raised by Mr Atkinson were researched by senior staff including myself. Morever, as I have already pointed out, we have found nothing to substantiate Mr Atkinson’s claims. He has given no example to validate any of his claims.
The initiative taken by the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) in requesting a meeting, which was held on Monday, February 7, 2011, with Gecom to discuss areas of mutual interest is an exhibition of maturity and partnership. The PNCR did not raise its concerns via the media. In fact this party put its concerns (with examples) to Gecom at this meeting. Four days later the PNCR made its concerns public when the party reported on its meeting with the commission.
In like manner, representatives of the Justice For All Party (JFAP) met with Gecom on Tuesday, February 15, 2011, to get clarity on several issues associated with contesting the upcoming elections. Appreciatively, this party exhibited maturity by not opting to communicate with the commission via the media.
Mr Edward’s fourth point was as follows: “It is in the AFC’s vested interest to get all eligible persons registered, so why would we want to cast doubt on GECOM’s work, we want to help GECOM, not sink GECOM. All we are calling on GECOM to do is review its work and ensure that our concerns are addressed. It does require a full blown defence. The old people always say, where there is smoke, there is fire, please look into the smoke we have alerted GECOM to Mr. Persaud.”
Mr Edwards’ posit that the AFC wants to help Gecom is laudable. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that he views my response as a “full blown defence.” While we welcome constructive criticism as a means to improve efficiency, we have a responsibility to set the record straight when public comments with potential to undermine the reputation of Gecom arise, and we must safeguard the Commission’s integrity and image. It is unfortunate that our actions in this regard are seen as a “full blown defence.”
If we were to live by the old people’s adage “where there is smoke there is fire” then we should also expect to find water where there is a mirage. In this regard the words of Chief Phillip to Charlie in V S Reid’s Young Warriors that “Maroons cannot eat feathers,” when Charlie barely missed his mark in the slingshot contest comes to mind. My point here is to emphasise that we cannot be expected to work with unfounded information. Give us substance and we will respond accordingly.
Mr Edwards then advocated: “When the claims and objection period commences, they must visit every village both in the Amerindian communities and on the coastland to seek out the youths to get them registered. It is clear that a growing percentage of the population is not interested in election 2011 and it is the duty of GECOM and the political parties to make them interested; it is the law. So you can give two weeks or 10 weeks notice, the reality is people do not have the money to go to the registration centre and thus the registration centre must go to them or an option must be provided where the people at least get transportation money to the centres.”
It has and continues to be Gecom’s policy that Mobile Registration Units be dispatched to far-flung hinterland communities to provide adequate opportunities for residents from such areas to apply for registration. Such visits are always publicized in advance.
Gecom is cognizant of its responsibilities associated with enthusing the electorate to participate in the electoral process and our civic and voter Education activities cater to the dissemination of appropriate messages accordingly.
Fiscal prudence will never allow Gecom to meet the cost of transportation for persons to visit registration offices to apply for registration. However, on a related matter, we need to recall that in the case of persons whose births are registered but who were not in possession of their respective birth certificates, the Gecom Secretariat had purchased and distributed application forms for birth certificates within the hinterland communities. Concerned persons had filled out the forms and returned them to the relevant Gecom registration offices without the required fee. Gecom’s Chief Election Officer and the respective registration officers had paid the fees from their personal funds in the submission of the applications to the GRO. We do not know what level of success this move has achieved.
Finally, Mr Edwards said: “We in the AFC will do our part and look forward to a stronger partnership with GECOM and the other political parties to facilitate more of our people getting registered and correctly. We look forward to the commencement of the claims and objection period and will be asking for a meeting shortly with GECOM on these issues. In view of the foregoing, we humbly ask Mr. Persaud to be more mature and listen to our concerns and allow us to help GECOM to do its work.”
Gecom looks forward to working with the AFC and all other key stakeholders towards the conduct of the upcoming elections in a successful manner which meets the satisfaction of all concerned.
May I assure Mr Edwards that Gecom and yours truly have always treated maturely with, and will continue to so do, the concerns/suggestions put to the commission by any collective or individual stakeholder – not lastly the AFC. This is exactly why we investigated the claims made by Mr Atkinson in the first place.
Vishnu Persaud
Public Relations Officer
Guyana Elections Commission
