There must be a word in the English language which can express something beyond exasperation. If there is, the voting population of this country should have been looking to articulate it a long time ago. But here we are, nearly six weeks since the appointment of Justice Claudette Singh as Gecom Chairperson and almost a week since the end of the house-to-house registration process, and this nation’s elections body still cannot give us even a ball-park indication of when we can reasonably expect they will be ready for an election.
Under the constitution and following the delay caused by the court cases, an election should be held by September 18, but today it is already September 6, and to all appearances (the opposition-nominated commissioners excepted), no-one at Gecom appears to be bothered by dates. Or is it rather that they are not bothered by the constitution? The worthy commissioners gathered in solemn conclave on Tuesday, when given the circumstances one would have expected a sense of urgency to have informed their discussions. But it appears that was not to be.
Of course, Justice Singh in a misconceived attempt at compromise between the two sides of the commission complicated issues immensely last week. While she did use the power enshrined in her casting vote to stop the house-to-house process last Saturday, she stated that the data collected in that exercise should be merged with the existing National Register of Registrants. Anyone who knows anything about the complexities of creating Guyana’s voters lists over the years, realised immediately the enormous problems, and by extension possible delays, that this entailed.
As we reported, the house-to-house operation is said to have registered 370,822 people. Not only is this a formidable figure for integration purposes, but it is not at all clear whether any of the data collected has been computerised. We quoted Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo as claiming that it all exists on “forms filled in by enumerators,” although we reported Gecom Public Relations Officer Yolanda Ward as saying that the staff had been working for the last three weeks to computerise and edit the data. How many staff? No one knows. How far have they gone towards completion? No one knows – or at least, no one outside the commission.
It would appear that the commissioners spent all of two hours on Tuesday deliberating on fingerprint cross-matching, the printing of National ID cards and the creation of a voters’ list following the merger of data, but they took no “meaningful” decisions whatsoever. The merger and cross-matching discussions seem to have taken place within the context of a report presented by Deputy Chief Election Officer Roxanne Myers and Gecom’s Information Technology Manager, who had gone to Jamaica to look at data-merging practices, the cross-matching of fingerprints and verification procedures. While what precisely was learned from that expedition was not revealed, the fact that they had to go at all at this stage can hardly fill the exhausted public with an overwhelming sense of confidence. As it is, the secretariat provided no indication of the timeline which might be involved; like everything else, that is still pending.
And then there was the futile consideration of ID cards. No current or former justice can be more familiar with the subject than Justice Claudette Singh, who in 2001 declared the 1997 general election null and void because it contravened the constitution to make ID cards issued by Gecom a prerequisite for voting. So why, one wonders, was the elections commission wasting time at such a critical juncture mulling this particular topic? And why did the Chairperson tolerate the discussion? Opposition-nominated Commissioner Sase Gunraj with some justification described the deliberation about producing the cards as “irrelevant.”
He was reported as saying that the secretariat had given a minimum timeline of 92 days for the production of ID cards, or a longer timeline of 140 days. He went on to observe that while these processes can occur concurrent with election preparations, the proposals were all for “very, very lengthy processes” which would be conducted using “unverified data.” One does not have to be an elections expert to see the potential obstacles inherent in that.
It was not just a question of which matters were brought up at the meeting, but also what was not brought up. Commissioner Gunraj complained in particular about claims and objections not being discussed. In addition to a timeline for the merging of data the secretariat would also have to provide a timeline for an “extensive claims and objections exercise,” and it is only after this is done and a list of electors produced that under normal circumstances a date for elections would be set.
Constitutionally speaking, it is the head of state who decides the election date, and in the current situation, as mentioned above, that date would have to fall by September 18. However, President David Granger reversed things by insisting that he could not identify an election date until Gecom indicated to him that it was ready, rather than asking the commission to alert him as to when it would be ready before September 18. In other words, he effectively substituted Gecom for the highest law in the land. If, as now seems likely, Gecom cannot meet the constitutional deadline, the government would have to get Parliament to grant an extension; this would require a two-thirds majority, i.e. the co-operation of the opposition.
Government-nominated Commissioner Vincent Alexander said that the commission was still trying to settle “some principles,” although it must be said that what those could conceivably be was not at all clear. However, he went on to enlarge, “Once those are settled we will define timelines based on proposals coming from the secretariat.” His colleague Commissioner Charles Corbin divulged that the commission would be examining those proposals today, which one must cautiously regard as progress, although whether it will eventuate in decisions relevant to the holding of an election within a reasonable time-frame remains to be seen.
One presumes it is unlikely that the misguided order on the merging of data will now be reversed. What one hopes, however, is that when the commissioners sit down to discuss today, the necessity of delivering an election in the fastest time feasible would ‘concentrate the mind wonderfully,’ and the public would get a measure of relief in terms of the decisions made. In order to achieve that, however, Justice Singh would have to keep a tight rein on the discussions and not allow irrelevancies to intrude. One would hope that she would also try and ensure that the commissioners did not emerge without having reached some conclusions, which one assumes may involve her being prepared to use her casting vote.
As things stand, Gecom is playing a role in dragging out the constitutional crisis interminably, and it is the one which must take the critical steps in the first instance to ending that crisis.
