Save for the 1994 poll, this country has not really been acquainted with local government elections for two generations. There was a poll in 1961, but it was recognized then that reform was necessary, and for this reason as well as partly because of the disturbances of the early sixties the next one was postponed for nearly a decade. New legislation in 1969 allowed the holding of local government elections in 1970; however, these were seen as being contaminated by the same virus which had infected the general election of 1968, and as such, were not viewed as a true expression of the will of the people.
The next fundamental reform to the system came in 1980, but following President Forbes Burnham’s death in 1985, the nation’s full focus was on national elections, and not local ones. It was after the general election of 1992, therefore, that attention was finally turned to local elections, which the new PPP/C government held in 1994. They were run off under the proportional representation system, although independent groups – as opposed to individuals – were allowed to take part.
Despite the fact that there had been no true local government polls for more than thirty years, this exercise in local democracy elicited little interest, let alone excitement, except perhaps in Georgetown. Here the entry of Hamilton Green’s party – Good and Green Guyana – into the contest produced some animation amongst the voters, or at least those in the southern wards. Mayor Green, while nowadays seen as being fully integrated into the PNCR, in those days had been expelled from the party by the leader, Mr Desmond Hoyte. The traditional PNC paid heavily for the split, securing only 31.7 per cent of the vote in the city, as against GGG’s 40.7%.
As for the PPP/C, it gained 26.7% of the votes cast in the capital, although it performed extremely well outside the traditional PNC urban strongholds. It won two-thirds of the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils, some of which the PNCR did not contest where there were independents standing.
What has to be said is that the general turnout of voters was extremely low at 32%. The turnout for local elections in nearly all parts of the democratic world tends to be much lower than that for national elections, but considering that in Guyana’s case there hadn’t been local polls for so long, and that the 1992 general election saw a massive turnout of voters, the political pundits were a little surprised at the figure. Various hypotheses have been put forward to account for this, one of which was simply the PR system, which catered largely for political parties and not independent representatives domiciled in an electoral area. Another possibility is that voters simply did not see how local elections would have any impact on their lives.
Both may have some validity, in conjunction with the fact that the electorate had had no genuine experience of local government for so long. Certainly, for the past 23 years and for most of the PNC years preceding those, local government was simply seen as an arm of central government wherever the parties in power at the local level were the same as those at the national level. Even where they weren’t, the municipalities aside, people thought that if they wanted action on or redress for something at the local level, they should deal with central government – and preferably the head of state if possible.
Mr Bharrat Jagdeo when president certainly helped to undermine any confidence there might have been in the authority of local government by swanning into villages and directing his lieutenants to address this or that problem. He was following in the footsteps of Mr Burnham, of course, who created the template for that particular approach. That was not the only thing subverting effective local government it must be said; inherent in the system itself were certain well-known aberrations, while it is not to forget either that over the last nineteen years many of the authorities have simply atrophied owing to the migration, death, illness, or boredom (among other things) of their members.
So now at last, after a tortuous process, and the passage of five bills in parliament, we have arrived at a new system ‒ part PR and part constituency ‒ and the electorate will have the opportunity on Friday to vote in local elections for the first time in two decades. Unfortunately, the system is complicated, and although Gecom has expended funds and energy attempting to educate the populace on its technicalities through the print and broadcast media, one wonders if everyone has grasped the fact that they will have to vote twice, once on the PR portion of the ballot and once on the constituency portion. It was really incumbent on the political parties when campaigning to provide back-up by explaining at the same time how to vote, although how much campaigning has been done for these particular elections is perhaps a moot point.
It is one thing to educate the electorate on the process, which is largely although not exclusively, Gecom’s duty, and another to encourage people to go out and vote, which falls as well to a range of individuals and agencies to do, not least the political parties – even if their emphasis is on persuading individuals to vote for them in particular.
The elections on March 18, barring certain constituencies, have like their predecessors generated very little excitement, possibly partly because there are no big meetings and clear party face-offs. What was required was for candidates to do things the old-fashioned way, and go house to house talking, explaining and persuading, as well as asking other candidates to join them in encounters with constituents where the latter could ask questions of the various hopefuls. (This has been done in one or two instances.) There was a major meeting for Georgetown as a whole at the Theatre Guild last Saturday, where a large panel asked questions of party and group representatives. It was a commendable initiative, although the model could perhaps be refined somewhat for future purposes; nevertheless, possibly it could form the basis for evolving a different style of campaigning for local government.
There is concern that the voter numbers will be low again on Friday, because the Disciplined Services have already voted, and their turnout was poor. It may be, of course, that for obvious reasons they have infinitely less of a vested interest in local government, since they can be deployed to a number of locations in the course of their careers.
Be that as it may, there are still a few days for all the candidates to get the message across to their constituents that there is a new system in place whereby councillors will really be answerable to the residents of a constituency, who will be able to vote them out at the next poll if they do not perform to satisfaction. While it is true that technically this will not apply to the councillors appointed under the PR part of the system, even they will feel themselves under pressure, as will their parties, if local constituents are dissatisfied, and make that dissatisfaction known.
It is possible that faith in the system might not come until voters actually experience how it works; however, candidates and everyone with a public voice have a duty to try and persuade electors that it is in their interest to vote, and give the new arrangements a chance to work. Local government is critical to everyone’s everyday lives.
