Last week’s article provoked quite a reaction from two bloggers who feature every day in the Stabroek News. One blogger, apparently in a hostile mood, asked me to come straight and say, yes or no, whether we should go into general or local government elections with the present voters’ list. The second blogger argued that the General Register Office (GRO) proved that GECOM was lying about dead people on the list and that the latter should explain the almost 80,000 new names on the list when the recent census shows the population declining. He further asserted that the PPP/C and its Commissioners could only know that the list is faulty after GECOM rolled it out for political parties’ scrutineers. He then engaged in a personal attack of me.
The first blogger reacted by stating that the Commissioners are just office holders and that the public servants involved are responsible for the many errors. He then directed his anger at me. A third blogger, who was far more respectful and courteous, wanted me to say how those Canadian cities mentioned in my article compile their voters’ lists and who is in control of the elections. He further asked that I shed some light about robocalls.
In Toronto, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation compiles the voters’ list. Since half of Toronto dwellers live in rented premises, a property owner is required to provide a tenants’ list. On elections day, if a person has discovered that his/her name is not on the voters’ list, that person has to make a sworn declaration before being allowed to vote. In the 2006 elections, one in every eight persons was not on the voters’ list but this did not pose a problem for the conduct of the
elections.
A robocall is an automated telephone call that delivers a recorded message typically on behalf of a political party or telemarketing company. During the 2011 federal elections in Canada, there were allegations about the use of robocalls and real-person calls to mislead voters about changes in the location of their polling stations, apparently in an effort to prevent them from voting. The Commissioner of Elections Canada investigated the allegations and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to believe that an offence was committed.
Legal Challenge on Local Government Elections
An Attorney-at-law, Mr. Husain-Subedar, has mounted a legal challenge to the Assembly’s decision to delay the holding of local government elections by 16 years and eight months, something I had contemplated doing even before stepping down as President of the TIGI. I had contacted a colleague from the legal fraternity who suggested that I seek the assistance of Mr. Husain-Subedar. I regret not doing so in view of my unwavering belief in democratic norms and values that should not be suppressed or tampered with for narrow political and partisan interest. I also believe that in public life the national interest must take precedence over all other interests.
Whether or not local government elections should be held, and when, should not the subject of negotiation nor should it require the exercise of discretion. Rather, it is an enshrined constitutional and legislative requirement that must be strictly adhered to without compromise. Democracy is not a gift from those in authority but a rather basic human right. Those who currently hold such positions should not forget that they derive their authority from the very democratic process that they now seek to suppress at the local level.
What’s wrong with the Voters’ List?
The official voters’ list is not out as yet, and in keeping with past practices, GECOM has produced a preliminary list for political parties and other interested persons to scrutinize. The period 4-31 August 2014 was set aside for claims and objections so that the list can be sanitized before its finalisation. However, at the request of the ruling party, GECOM extended this period by seven days. One would expect that there will be some degree of inaccuracy in the list, particularly as regards the need to remove from the list persons who have died since the 2011 elections. This is dependent on the timely submission of information from the GRO. Suffice it to state GECOM cannot remove names from the electoral list unless there is adequate documentary evidence to support such action.
The ruling party has claimed that the list contains 2,958 names of persons who have died. This is no cause for alarm. If the claim can be verified by documentary evidence, then the names will be removed. This is part of the sanitization exercise. It is therefore misleading for anyone to state that the preliminary voters’ list will be used to conduct elections, whether local or national.
The suggestion that GECOM was lying about people who have died but are still in the preliminary list, is also inappropriate since one cannot draw conclusions on the basis of a single name. In relation to the almost 80,000 new names on the list, the source of this information appears to come from allegations made by the ruling party’s General Secretary. However, this claim has been debunked by GECOM and the main Opposition party APNU. At a press briefing on 4 September 2014, GECOM stated that the 87,295 persons added to the PLE was mainly the result of the 2008 house-to-house registration exercise. Persons were also registered from age 14 although the voting age is 18 while the total registrants from 2008 to the present stands at 614,523. GECOM also stated that the ruling party’s assertion that annually the list increases by approximately 11,000 persons, is not true. If the preliminary list is padded by 80,000 persons, how is it that only 2,958 discrepancies were discovered during the claims and objections period?
If when the final list is out and there are still names of fictitious persons, or persons who have died, one has to assess the safeguards in place to prevent such names from being translated into votes. Former Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran stated that elections in Guyana cannot be rigged because of the efficiency of GECOM; its internal management capacity; its systems of control; its quality of training; and its management of registration of elections, which have all improved with every election. He further stated that if fraud takes place, it will be so negligible that it cannot affect the outcome of elections.
Given the above, it is therefore premature to conclude that the list is flawed and that this constitutes grounds for not holding elections, whether national or local government.
Role of the Commissioners
GECOM is responsible for administration and conduct of elections in Guyana. It consists of six Commissioners and a Chairman, and is supported by staff of the Secretariat and hundreds of temporary staff. In his own deliberate judgment, the President appoints three Commissioners while the other three Commissioners are appointed on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition.
Prior to 2000, the Commission was a temporary one that was constituted for each election and disbanded three months after the elections. For example, for the 1997 elections, which took place on 15 December 1997, the Commission was put together on 12 December 1995, and its life came to an end on 15 March 1998. The present Commission is now a permanent one, having been established in May 2000 by the Constitutional Amendment Act of 2000. There is also no term limit during which the Commissioners can serve. Like the board of directors of a company, the Commission sets policies, and it is the Secretariat that executes them. The Commissioners bear the same responsibilities as those of the directors of a company, and it is the Commission that is accountable to the electorate if anything goes wrong.
Local Government Elections
versus National Elections
A motion of a vote of no confidence has been tabled in the National Assembly in accordance with Article 106 (6) of the Constitution, which states that “The Cabinet including the President shall resign by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.” If the motion succeeds, elections have to be called within three months, or such longer period as the Assembly may determine as supported by two-thirds of the elected Members.
Local government elections and national elections must be viewed as distinct and independent of each other. Since 1994, no local government elections were held and therefore we are in breach of the Constitution and the related legislation for 17 years. This should not be allowed to continue any longer. The President needs to assent to the related Bill now and announce the date of the elections. If the vote of no confidence succeeds, then we will have national elections three months later unless GECOM declares that it would find it difficult to administer national elections immediately after local government elections. If this happens, then the Assembly can, by two-thirds majority, decide on a later date. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable position to take.
