There was a curious development on Thursday, when the cabinet announced that tomorrow would be a public holiday. One assumes that the decision had already been taken earlier in the week when cabinet met, so that when the Private Sector Commission proposed it, it may already have been a fait accompli. The day before the PSC had issued their suggestion, Fitug had done the same thing – a convenient confluence of ideas, one might have thought. The problem is that Fitug is unquestionably associated with the government, and the perception – whether right or wrong – is that the PSC leans towards the ruling party too. So it was not as if the proposal emanated from what were viewed by the public to be impartial sources.
As is well known, in 2006, the low turn-out in traditional PNC bastions of the capital was partly attributed to the fact that there were no minibuses on the road to transport people to the polling stations. Given the peripatetic characteristics of the city population, many people would have had to travel some distance to reach the polling station where their name was on the voters’ list.
If indeed the intention of the PPP/C this time around was to secure a repeat of what happened before, it may backfire on them. One suspects that with all these new housing schemes where many presumed PPP supporters have been given house lots, the adherents of all parties who might have moved in the last three years following registration will be affected by the lack of transportation, and not just the opposition voters. The PSC itself seems to have had a second thought, and on Friday issued a release exhorting the minibuses to come out on Monday. Their request comes too late. Running a minibus is an economic venture, and most operators will not put their vehicles on the road unless they can be assured of a profit.
There are other issues too with the Commission: for some strange reason it has assumed some of the duties of Gecom in these elections. There is the PSC representative, looking avuncular on TV, explaining to viewers why we should ensure there will be a peaceful election. Why do they think that they can have any influence on events? Anyone who is determined not to have a peaceful election (and hopefully there are none of those) is not going to listen to them in any case, and as for everyone else, they do not need to be persuaded. Voters are not children and should not be lectured to by the PSC, of all organizations; all they need is the standard information from Gecom about arrangements for casting ballots, the voting process, etc.
If that were not enough, on Monday the private sector body said that Commissioner Henry Greene had assured them that the Force was well prepared to deal with the pre-election, election and post-election period. On Tuesday we reported that the PSC called on the media to be responsible in their coverage of elections; while two days later Chairman Ramesh Dookhoo cast doubt on an early declaration of results. Leaving the first-mentioned item aside for the moment, they have no business opening their mouths on the other topics, particularly the last one which comes exclusively within Gecom’s province. The PSC is observing elections, and should be operating with infinitely more propriety than it is currently doing because of that role. Observers have not just to be objective, but appear to be so.
The announcement of the Commission’s assurance from Mr Greene about the preparedness of the police was apparently quite misleading, because on Thursday the public learnt that the PSC was teaming up with the police on Election Day to ensure polls were peaceful and to give them support in terms of transportation and other resources. Is the PSC now a special branch of the GPF which no one knew about before? How did the Commissioner come to accede to this bizarre and irregular arrangement? The only forces of law and order which should be on the road tomorrow ensuring peace are the legitimate ones authorized under our laws so to function. And there is nothing in those laws which says that the PSC has been given any such authority – not even to transport the officers. The police should be operating alone – or in the context of the Joint Services if that becomes necessary – co-ordinate their own movements, arrange their own transportation and not be reliant on outside agencies whose legal status, interests and motivation are quite separate from theirs.
The same goes for the operations room which the PSC is setting up to monitor the electoral process, and whose purpose is obscure. Has the police force finally thrown in the towel, one wonders? If that is so, then the whole upper hierarchy of the force should be dismissed for incompetence. And even if the issue were just a matter of transportation, and the management of the GPF did not consider it had enough vehicles to discharge its functions tomorrow (although that seems unlikely; they have done it when they had far fewer vehicles at their disposal) then they should have approached the government for back-up to augment their fleet for the day. In any event, no external organization like the PSC should be in a position to track what the police are doing and where they are going at the time decisions are made; that goes against basic principles of security.
Observer status excepted, the PSC should take itself out of election matters altogether, and return to the space where it belongs – dealing with business and commerce.
