Dear Editor,
With a chair now in the hot seat, there has to be rapid advancing through the pressurized learning curve of the burning issues on the table before Gecom, if only to recover some of the lost time. As I see it, the hottest coal that has to be dealt with in a frank, fair, and forceful manner is the disposition of the list of eligible voters.
From a commonsense standpoint, there are three possible approaches through which to tackle the ongoing, unmoving bone-in-the-throat matter of a list. The first approach is to move forward with the existing list, as has been insisted upon by the opposition. I have a serious problem with any clean, any reasonably honest, list that identifies approximately 85% of the whole population as eligible voters. This simply does not make statistical sense, or circumstantial sense, or good old commonsense. For certainty, it makes for convenient and partisan political sense to push forward (loudly and unequivocally) for Gecom to declare the current list operative. If I were the opposition, that would be my unswerving position, especially given what is known and feared about its base and leakages, and given the now slim to almost nonexistent demographic advantages. If I am the opposition that would be my immovable public posture, as untenable as it stands in its lack of resonance and in the teeth of all the unanswerable questions that are raised.
The second option for Gecom to chew on is to go to the other extreme and pursue as near as a perfect list as can be had, through comprehensive house-to-house registration. This would be coming rather closely-perhaps unwisely so-to the government’s position and vision. In this instance, if I am the president, that would be the sweet music of a hallelujah moment. Now speaking as a private citizen (and not as an admitted government supporter) I can only associate with what I consider an honest and realistic list, insofar as circumstances permit. I had to affix that pivotal qualifier.
It is because circumstances, as they are currently, may not permit an absolute overhaul of the existing list. Now before proceeding ahead, I seek the sidebar of a quick departure. As shared in a recent writing, a short time (less than an hour) after the consensus chair was announced, the registration folks from Gecom came to my home to do their work. I probed and learned three things: the last registration was in 2013 (repeatedly questioned, repeatedly confirmed orally); continuous domestic residence of one year is mandatory for registration; and there is a fine and/or imprisonment for failure to register. Me being me, I recommended that the fine be dropped; keep the jail time. Also, six years since the last registration is a long time demographically; appearance, practicality, and decency demand a different list. Hence, I say proceed with a revised list, which brings to the third option (in some shape or form) in front of Gecom.
The third option, however, must incorporate the compromise of an intensified approach (quicker), a lesser net (of registered), and more people and cash. It has to be some combination of these three elements, with an eye to timing, registration numbers, and corresponding resource appropriation, through still another compromise –parliament. Both sides give up something to get somewhere (travel lighter, smarter, better) if the paramount interest is to obtain an authentic process and list on which all can accept and rely. Authentic process and list, as well as accept and rely are dangerous words in political Guyana, but they have to be the compelling objectives.
It goes without saying that all of this calls for great statesmanship and the highest ideals of patriotism: the richness of country first as against the ugliness of party and power first. I am for a compromise third option. If the visions and accompanying spirit and strategies are about bona fide lists and elections, then there is high likelihood that the related results will stand any filter from any source. I cannot think of how any leader or any group could find fault with working together to narrow the distance on list and date, through agreeing to the third option, under the auspices of a cautious, determined, and decisive Gecom.
Editor, I submit that whatever compromising forces and goals incentivized movement on a chair could just as well apply to that of a list. The calendar is open. It must not be allowed to stay that way for too long
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
