There is no movement yet on implementing electoral reforms recommended by the Organisation of American States (OAS) following the November 28, 2011 general elections.
The standing committee on constitutional reform which should have overseen these matters has not met since the elections, leader of the AFC Khemraj Ramjattan says. “The Constitutional Reform Commission was supposed to deal with these matters,” he said noting that the body was supposed to be dealing with reforms for the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) as well.
The AFC leader said that the reforms could only be dealt with by the CRC but since the opening of the 10th Parliament, the body has not met. “It is somewhat at a dead end,” he asserted. He suggested that the reason that the CRC has not met was because the parties had other pressing matters to deal with. He noted however that it should be convened as there are some issues involving GECOM that have to be dealt with. The Speaker has to convene the body, he noted.
The OAS which mounted a 25-member Electoral Observer Mission headed by Jamaican professor Gordon Shirley for the 2011 elections recommended a series of reforms to the country’s electoral framework and for more equitable access to the media – a sore problem for opposition parties – and to campaign financing.
In terms of electoral reform, the OAS mission proposed changes to allow voters direct access to their representatives. It has been proposed by some political parties that a list of candidates in order of priority be presented to the voters so they would have an idea as to who they would be voting into Parliament. The OAS also mooted reforms to GECOM which was something that opposition parties have been pressing for.
The OAS mission posited that the various political stakeholders review the existing electoral legal framework in the following areas:
1. “Given that the Guyanese electoral system requires voters to mark a ballot for the party, not a named candidate, the mission recommends revisiting the possibility of allowing direct representation to provide greater choice for voters and direct access to political representatives.
2. “A review of the composition of the Electoral Commission to potentially incorporate technical criteria and to establish mechanisms that guarantee plurality. These recommendations are “designed to enhance independence and to reduce the perception of politicization of the electoral process.
3. “The level of legal detail and discretion afforded the Commission regarding electoral procedures. The OAS mission recommends the consideration of safeguards and detailed regulations to ensure full independence and guarantee participation by all citizens.
4. “Guaranteed availability and disbursement of the approved allotment of resources for the electoral process to GECOM on a regular, scheduled basis during electoral years.
5. “As recommended by the 2006 OAS electoral observation mission, constitutionally mandated local elections should be held soon to increase the inclusivity of the political system.”
Several other recommendations stemming from its observer mission here were made including determination of and adherence to timely and standardized procedures for the electoral process. The OAS mission recommended that GECOM incorporate stringent deadlines for the electoral calendar and for changes in procedures prior to Election Day.
Key among the other recommendations were mechanisms to ensure more even access to media and political financing. The report recommended:
* “The further institutionalization of GECOM’s Media Monitoring Unit, including the incorporation of mechanisms that ensure its impartial composition and legal mechanisms that include oversight and enforcement capabilities.
* The development of mechanisms to ensure the independence of members of the Board of Authority contemplated in the Broadcasting Act. The OAS electoral observation mission recommended that regulations made pursuant to the Act should limit the discretion of the Board and should set out in detail both the conditions governing licenses and clarifications of the general terms used in the Act.
* “A legal review of the campaign financing framework. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of a requirement for disclosure of campaign expenditures prior to the elections, to the establishment of criteria for private and foreign contributions, and to instituting public campaign financing.
* “A review of options for proportional party access to paid and free advertising time without the existing requirement by state channels for a 48 hour prior submission for review”.
