Guyanese go to the polls tomorrow following what must be the most divisive and discordant campaign since free and fair elections returned to this country. The tone was set by former president, Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, who has been displaying something of a split personality. On the one hand ? as has been observed before in the leader columns of this newspaper ? he could head an observer mission to Sri Lanka’s elections, and append his signature to a report criticising the abuse of state resources and the “comprehensive bias” of the state media there; and on the other, he could find the same things perfectly acceptable in his homeland.
Since 1992, there have been allegations subsequent to one election or another that it was stolen or rigged, but the observers to all of them gave them clean bills of health. That is why it is so bizarre that before this one there have been warnings from the PPP – most recently in this weekend’s Mirror editorial – that suggested the coalition would try and ‘steal’ the election, and suggesting the methods which might be used.
Apart from these statements being both irresponsible as well as calumnious, it belittles the role that the observers will play in verifying whether or not the poll was free and fair. Any government coming into office must have that verification; it would simply not be possible for one which didn’t get it to find acceptance from our neighbours, other democratic countries, or many of the hemispheric and international organizations to which we belong.
In pursuing this particular allegation against the opposition the PPP could be accused of not trusting the observers to do their job, but judging from official statements as well as Mr Hydar Ally’s letter which appeared in our Wednesday edition last week, that would not appear to be the case; at all stages the ruling party has welcomed the presence of observers. Even Freedom House, one might have thought, would have the common sense to recognise that it is simply not possible for anyone to reprise the crude rigging techniques of an earlier era and not be noticed. What they have done, therefore – although one presumes it is not what they intend – is to make room for suspicion on the part of their opponents that they could be laying the groundwork for a challenge to any result which is not in their favour.
Some voting has already taken place, that is to say of the Disciplined Services on May 2. Last week, PPP General Secretary Clement Rohee itemised some allegations about particular incidents during the process, and expressed concern about the number of voters who had cast their ballots without showing ID cards. Since it is not illegal to vote without an ID card, and given the circumstances of a military camp, this might be easily explained. Some of the other allegations are more problematical, and are no doubt being thoroughly investigated by Gecom. However, it must be said that they appear to be isolated occurrences, and even the PPP acknowledged that in the main Disciplined Services voting went off well.
On the other side of the coin it has been alleged that both President Ramotar and Dr Frank Anthony were present at Camp Ayanganna during the ballot, the former, apparently in his party colours, an illegality to which a correspondent to this newspaper drew attention. The correspondent, Mr Ram, also alluded to another section of the Representation of the People Act which may have been breached by the two. For a party trying to raise fears about the intentions of the coalition in relation to the election, it was not a propitious start.
However, there was something else which happened on that day which was disturbing, and it had nothing to do with the PPP. APNU+AFC candidate Mr James Bond posted the results of what he said was an exit poll done at the Whim Police Station in Corentyne where the joint services cast their votes. When subjected to criticism, Mr Bond was unrepentant, responding that it was a “storm in a teacup” and that exit polls are done in all modern democracies. That is perfectly true, but the problem is that Guyana in the present circumstances in not an average modern democracy.
It is not that exit polls are illegal here, since they were certainly used in the 1992 election; however, a whole mountain of distrust has built up between the two major parties since that time. One of Gecom’s criticisms of Mr Bond’s action was that exit polls can sometimes be inaccurate, and that is perfectly true (although not, it might be noted, in the UK election of May 7). In this country it should be said that the problem of accuracy is greater than it is elsewhere. Some people emerging from casting their ballot nowadays might first weigh up who the pollster is before deciding whether or not to tell him or her the truth, and given the levels of mistrust an inaccurate exit poll would raise endless possibilities for mischief. In our case, therefore, the only results for this election made public should be the official ones.
It should be added that in this particular instance it was the votes of the Joint Services which were involved, and those ballots have to be counted with the general votes under present arrangements, in order to protect the right to privacy and to avoid subsequent recriminations from any side about how the members voted. As it was, Mr Bond made the situation even worse by singling out one lone polling station, ie, Whim, thereby effectively negating the privacy of those who cast their ballots there. A citizen’s entitlement to a secret ballot goes back a very long way, and Mr Bond does not have the right to take it away. One hopes, as a consequence, APNU+AFC will impress upon its candidates and members the absolute importance of discretion, and the need to avoid the kind of action of which Mr Bond was guilty.
Tomorrow, one hopes that both parties would ensure their candidates, agents and representatives adhere punctiliously to both the electoral laws and the conventions.
