Dear Editor,
No more walkouts. Free and fair elections. So said chairwoman, Judge Claudette Singh, of Gecom. Already I am comforted by these unequivocal statements from that source. As every pronouncement and posture of the new chair is going to be listened to, watched closely, and analyzed endlessly, I think this is a good start. She sounds like a seasoned campaigner.
I say the position of-indeed, the gauntlet thrown down by-the chair to her colleagues is both clear and long overdue. In terms of the latter, the work of the commission, through its appointed political representatives, could be safely described as being performed in an out-of-control and renegade manner: slipshod, dismissive, and reckless. For a long time now, the deliberations and decisions of Gecom might as well have been conducted in open forum: nothing was in-house, confidential, or protected. That was what prevailed with just about everything poured out openly and purposely (not even stealthily) into the recorders of journalists or before the cameras. At the risk of exaggeration, many times I thought the commissioners were making a motion picture and reveling in their starring roles. How could anything of substance get executed in such a situation?
It shouldn’t have to be said, but I think it is appropriate: commissioners have to zip their lips, and leave their walking shoes outside the door. So far outside that they cannot be found. Said differently, they have to be more circumspect, come across as more sober, and comport themselves with the dignity and decorum befitting their weighty office, the gravity of their duty. Further, going forward, all public comments have to come directly from the chair or be cleared in advance with her. She should make no exceptions. What has emanated from the commissioners of late has made a mockery of the organization and its endeavors. Even further, I call upon all commissioners to manifest the maturity and wisdom that ought to be essential aspects of their age, education, and life exposures. Let the table thumping, shouting, even climbing up the walls be kept on the inside. I suspect that this is extremely difficult to follow, given the nature and delicate political sensitivities involved. But what occurs over there must remain in Las Vegas. I say this though I know it is a political crapshoot. From what I know, I don’t know how any organization, including a real well run one, could last for long with what was happening.
Thus, I agree with the chair: the disagreements, conflicts, and ensuing bottlenecks over the work of Gecom have to be solved on their own by their own, meaning on the inside. Commissioners are not mere messengers nor baggage carriers. As to what constitutes free and fair elections in this part of the world, I cannot foresee how philosophical, numerical, and actual deadlocks will not occur. Or how they will be overcome smoothly. All I can say at this juncture is that the chair must demonstrate the strength and courage to forge ahead. In view of the unchanging manner of minds, she is going to have to be the deciding vote to unravel many a hard, unknottable tie. But when all is considered, this must always be remembered: she was and is the consensus candidate. However great or little the public rhetoric is believed to be.
Therefore, however she votes to break this or that tie-or such is perceived-it has to be interpreted and accepted that the chair is doing so in cool, unpressured, unbiased fashion, and after careful deliberation; and that she was not in favour of this or that side, but for both and all that they represent and have declared that seek to accomplish. And what the laws of Guyana allow, and what all Guyana (well, so I would hope) expect.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
