First Head of the European Union (EU) Election Observation Mission (EOM) to Guyana, Urmas Paet yesterday cited the APNU+AFC coalition and opposition PPP/C for utilising state resources to campaign for the March 2 general and regional elections.
“The mission saw governmental donations provided in the context of APNU+AFC campaign events, in particular [in] Region Nine,” said Paet, who added that to a lesser extent, the PPP/C was also observed using state resources at the regional level. “In-kind vote buying in Indigenous communities was a widely reported practice of both APNU+AFC and PPP/C,” Paet told the media at a press conference at the Marriott Hotel, where the mission’s preliminary statement on the elections was given.
The mission also highlighted that the government’s Department of Public Information (DPI) extensively promoted the ruling coalition’s campaign activities.
“Media were able to freely cover the campaign. The law requires broadcasters to provide a fair and balanced coverage of national politics, but the oversight broadcasting authority did not conduct a thorough monitoring. State broadcast and state print media showed open bias in favour of the ruling coalition,” Paet said.
Meanwhile, he said that the mission has observed some inconsistencies in the results transmission and tabulation process but added that it is yet to be seen how these will impact the overall electoral process.
“Counting was conducted in a transparent manner, but reconciliation procedures were not always followed. In the absence of clear, written instructions, the mission noted inconsistencies in the results transmission and tabulation process,” Paet said.
‘Inconsistent manner’
His deputy, Alexander Matus, later explained that due to the absence of clear and written instructions as to how the tabulation process should be done, their observers noticed that the deputy returning officers and returning officers “were often doing the tabulation in an inconsistent manner, meaning they were not following the same procedures.”
Matus further said this also relates to the transfer of statements of polls from the polling stations to the district returning officers then to the returning officers.
However, he emphasised that until the process is completed, they will not make any assessment as to the credibility of the tabulation process and pointed out that their observers are deployed in the offices of the ten regional returning officers and they are witnessing the process.
“Once the process is finalised we will compile our own observations and then we will provide the final assessment of the credibility and transparency of the tabulation process in our final report,” Matus said.
Asked if the observers pointed out the inconsistences, Matus said that the mission is bound by the code of conduct for international observers and as such cannot interfere in the process while it is ongoing but have to wait until the tabulation is completed and then provide their assessment of the process.
Paet added that there were cases of
persons visiting polling stations and not finding their names and they left but it was later figured out that the persons were indeed slated to vote at the particular station. Inconsistencies also existed in the systematic checking for ink when voters entered the station and the most reported issue was the verification of whether voters voted on February 21st when members of the joint services cast their votes.
The mission has 50 observers in the country from 19 European states and Norway, and according to Paet, they had observers in 201 of the 2,339 polling stations. The EU EOM chief said even though they had observers in only 201 polling stations, they were able to get a clear picture as to what transpired on election day since they were present in all 10 administrative regions. Their observers will remain until the counting process is completed, and a final statement with recommendations will be issued in another three months.
Freely
According to Paet, the voting process was well-managed in that electors were able to exercise their vote freely and their observers rated the process positively “although some procedural safeguards were not consistently applied.”
However, the EOM head said that the March 2nd elections took place in a “deeply polarised environment.”
“The elections were competitive, contestants could campaign freely and election day was well managed by the election administration. Unregulated political finance, biased state media, legal uncertainty and lack of transparency in the administration of elections characterised the pre-election context,” Paet said.
He later pointed out that while the legal framework provides a reasonable basis for competitive elections, numerous gaps and ambiguities create legal uncertainty and reduce transparency.
Meantime, he said that the bipartisan political composition of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has led to strong polarisation, affecting its ability to function as a collegiate body.
“Transparency of the election administration is undermined by the lack of access to GECOM’s key decisions, instructions and essential electoral data. Lack of institutional engagement with the media and stakeholders contributed to most parties being left out and the general public being under-informed. Although the performance of GECOM regional structures was generally viewed as effective and professional, overall confidence in the commission varied among political parties,” Paet said.
He noted as well that the voters’ list includes 660,990 names, which is well above the estimated resident adult population. The mission said that high emigration rates account, in part, for this situation. The controversy surrounding GECOM’s decision to have house to house registration was also noted as well as the fact that it contributed to a substantial delay in the timing of elections. And while the full voters’ list was available online, essential data on its preparation were not published.
Meantime, according to the mission, there are no unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand, except that there is no provision for independent candidates to stand. “The procedures for submitting lists of candidates favoured the two main contestants and revealed barriers to participation of smaller parties. Out of 19 parties that applied for a party symbol, only 13 submitted lists of candidates. Eleven parties were approved – nine for both general and regional elections and two for regional elections only,” Paet said.
In its evaluation of the media, the EOM report said:
“Media were able to freely cover the campaign. The law requires broadcasters to provide a fair and balanced coverage of national politics, but the oversight broadcasting authority did not conduct a thorough monitoring. State broadcast and state print media showed open bias in favour of the ruling coalition. Clearly misusing state resources, the governmental Department of Public Information extensively promoted the ruling coalition’s campaign activities. Most private media offered a partisan coverage in favour of one of the two main political forces”.
It added: “The state-owned broadcast media, which benefit from the widest reach in the country, showed an overt bias in favour of the government and ruling coalition. The state-owned TV Channel 11 devoted a total of 60 per cent of its news coverage to the government and the president, and 25 per cent to APNU+AFC. In addition, clearly misusing state resources, the Department of Public Information (DPI), a governmental agency, was extensively used to promote the ruling coalition’s campaign activities.
“Private broadcasters also showed a bias in their coverage of the election campaign. Namely, Channel 28 and the PPP/C affiliated TV Channel 65 devoted to this party 58 per cent and 77 per cent of their news coverage, respectively. By contrast, Channel 9 devoted a total of 57 per cent of its news to the president and the government as well as 23 per cent to APNU+AFC.
“The state-owned newspaper, Guyana Chronicle, provided extensive news coverage of the incumbent president, government and ruling coalition, offering considerable space to letters from readers critical towards PPP/C. Conversely, Guyana Times offered wide and positive coverage of PPP/C and substantial negative coverage of the government and ruling coalition. Stabroek News and Kaieteur News proved to be rather balanced in their news coverage”.
