Dear Editor,
There are those who would argue that some of the parties concerned might not have been totally honest with themselves. Others, on the other hand, after reviewing the evidence could more accurately posit that all the involved parties deliberately misdirected themselves regarding the structure, roles and accountability relationships which should better obtain in Gecom in particular.
Over the last two decades the parties referred to must obviously be government and opposition; Chairman and members of the Guyana Elections Commission.
Why is it that, individually and collectively, they all found it convenient to ignore the circumstances which led to the Carter Center making a high powered intervention in 1992 to address the political fiasco in which the nation was enmeshed, culminating in the representative structure which now obtains for the governance of Gecom?
Why it is there appears to be little or no reference to the Constitution, the provisions of which explicitly separate the roles of the Chairman and members on the one hand, from the specified role and responsibilities of the Chief Elections Officer, on the other?
Why is it that, moreso, during the most recent incumbency, commissioners (including erudite legal counsel) allowed the obfuscation and overriding of the constitutional status of that office authorised to run elections, as a consequence of which confusion, there were interminable arguments, doubts, apprehensions about the validity, or otherwise, of the various elections score sheets?
Now in 2017, the confusion is heightened by the accustomed misinforming of self and others. All concerned have determinedly ignored almost all of the recommendations of the number of observer missions they pretended to welcome, as if to validate the elections processes and outcomes. Such a substantive indifference was also reflected in even a normally sensitive media.
But there could be no forgiving of the commissioners’ delinquency regarding what should have been a historic ‘observation’ by the very Carter Center mission to the effect that the extant governance structure had become sterile and counter-productive, and should be aborted. That since 2006 such a recommendation was neither comprehensively debated, or conclusive decision made at the highest level of the sponsoring parties, was clear evidence of dereliction of duty by the then commissioners. How could they not recognize their greater responsibility to the citizenship as a whole, who would also have a constitutional right to be part of that critical decision-making process?
The Carter Center mission, in recommending the discontinuance of the current political management framework, made reference to models in the Commonwealth which function more effectively, and consequently enjoy much more creditability.
They recommended a new structure to be managed by recognisably qualified professionals, as obtains in Barbados, Jamaica, Canada and elsewhere; and for a specific term of office.
Following are relevant extracts from ‘Recommendations/Issues to be addressed’:
“2. Reforming GECOM
“a) GECOM should be independent from the government and be accountable to and receive funding from the National Assembly. The independence of GECOM from the government’s administration will bolster the Commission’s credibility and independence.
“b) The Carter-Price formula for GECOM should be changed to ensure that GECOM is not divided solely along political lines)
“i) GECOM should be composed of individuals who are solely committed to carrying out a successful and transparent elections process, and who have the confidence of political parties, but who can also maintain independence. As noted in The Carter Center’s report on the 2001 elections, “as part of electoral reform efforts, Guyana should give careful consideration to alternative models, possibly reducing or eliminating political party representation and increasing the role of independent members of civil society and professional experts.”
This is the challenge the electorate (not only government and opposition) now faces. It is time for corrective action ‒ certainly after ten years.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
