Dear Editor,
In the journey that has been Guyana’s Elections 2020, there has been a relentless (conscious and exhaustingly constant) gaslighting of the public: certain individuals have embarked on a stratagem to cause intelligent, decent and fair-minded people to question their own observations, memory and judgement. They seek to confuse, clutter and obfuscate.
As such, it is increasingly important to step back, and to resist these attempts in a consequential manner. This prevents chaos and confusion, and attempts at revisionism. Despite Lin-Jay Harry-Voglezon’s (`No evidence of electoral fraud…’ Letter to Editor, SN 2020.05.08) well intentioned and positive commentary on democracy, his letter continued in the vein of willful blindness; it is the “noise” that surrounds Elections 2020. I characterize it as noise, because it seeks to distract from actual observed events (signals).
The letter raised the following points: (1) what constitutes democracy; (2) the importance of a fair hearing to all sides; (3) that GECOM’s inefficiencies and suspicious behaviour is not equivalent to fraud; (4) the standards of transparency in Guyana differs vis-à-vis observers’ countries; (5) impugning GECOM staff is unprofessional; and (6) to whom GECOM owes obligations. Before I deal with each of the foregoing, and at the risk of being repetitive, the sequence of events with respect to Mingo-gate must be restated.
On the evening of March 2, 2020, across the length and breadth of Guyana, 2339 teams of Guyanese, hired and trained by GECOM, counted the votes cast in the General and Regional Elections. They did so in the presence of scrutineers from multiple political parties, and in particular, the PPP and the APNU+AFC; local and international observers were also present. They prepared Statements of Polls (SOPs) and these were duly published outside the respective polling places. Copies were given to the two major political parties, among others; observers took photos of the published SOPs. By all reports, polling during the course of the day was free, fair and relatively incident free.
The Returning Officers for nine electoral districts completed their tasks, as required, in a transparent, systematic and credible manner, and results were subsequently declared. The sole exception was the Returning Officer for Regional District 4 (R4), who arrogated to himself the power to vitiate an ordinarily simple and transparent process. A number of attempts were subsequently made by GECOM’s staff to fabricate results for R4 (spreadsheet-gate). Despite yeoman efforts by party agents and observers, the SOPs for R4 were ultimately left unobserved as the Guyana Police Force commandeered the command centre, evicted all who were legally present, and over days, only allowed selected individuals to enter and exit. The Chairperson, the CEO and other staff of GECOM were only accessible by select administration personnel.
I will now turn my attention to the points raised in the letter and deal with each in turn.
To be willfully blind to what transpired is to be complicit with dishonesty; it condones the actions of bankrupt individuals which were on full display to the local and international public. The weaknesses of Guyana’s electoral democracy should not distract from the fundamental requirement that elections must be credible, transparent, inclusive, fair and definitive. While I agree that democracy is “more than counting votes,” this “counting” must be thoroughly transparent. Fair elections are the bedrock of a representative and democratic government. Guyanese must have the right to choose their own government without worrying that the results have been falsified. Vitiating the electoral process and de-railing a transparent and credible declaration snatches choice from every single Guyanese. Credibility, transparency and accountability are necessary prerequisites to safeguard the people’s electoral mandate. Mingo and GECOM’s actions were an affront to the Guyanese electorate.
Mr. Harry-Voglezon must appreciate the irony in his request for a fair hearing when many of his fellow travelers, himself included, have not prevailed upon GECOM and the APNU+AFC to publish the SOPs. When the opposition, in 2011, called for the SOPs to be published, GECOM complied. What is preventing a similar action in 2020?
Stabroek News, commentators and stakeholders have asked GECOM and the APNU+AFC, ad nauseam, to publish their copies of the SOPs. We are all waiting for an opportunity to examine these documents; we are clearly open to be convinced. That no logical reasons have been provided for the hesitation to furnish same leads, in my opinion, to two unavoidable conclusions: (1) with respect to GECOM – its staff may have tampered with these documents, and as such, are unable to produce same; and (2) APNU+AFC copies shows that they have lost the elections.
It also defies logic that a winning party will not (1) readily demonstrate the evidence of its victory; (2) request the constitutional authority, i.e. GECOM, to furnish unambiguous evidence of same; (3) agree to the most transparent, robust and efficient recount process; and (4) invite the maximum number of independent observers to be present for the re-count. Instead, what we have witnessed is an attempt to complicate the simple, and exploit Covid-19 to remove people who the incumbent APNU+AFC deem inconvenient to their nefarious plan. No one can help those who choose to ignore the obvious.
Further, Stabroek News has published innumerable letters with alternative viewpoints (Lincoln Lewis; Lin-Jay Harry-Voglezon; Tacuma Ogunseye; Sherwood Lowe). If this is not fair and reasonable opportunities to be heard, then pray tell, what is? It is not as if NCN or the Guyana Chronicle have any semblance of objectivity or provide equal opportunity.
The Chief Justice (ag) was not tasked with making a determination on electoral fraud. As such, Mr. Harry-Voglezon’s assertion on this point is a red herring. The matter that occupied the Chief Justice’s attention dealt with the now infamous Mingo (R4 Returning Officer) declaration, and the steps he took to arrive at his fabricated results. Mr. Mingo’s actions were unequivocally found to be contrary to law. I have already unpacked that decision and refer readers to SN 2020.03.13; 16. Suffice to say, Mr. Mingo, instead of reforming his actions to conform with the intent of the law and the Court’s ruling, chose to become more intransigent and unaccountable.
That Mr. Harry-Voglezon chose to minimize the gross violations to transparency, credibility and accountability unfortunately demonstrates an insincerity to democratic ideals. He needs to refresh his memory of what transpired post-election: it was not a simple matter of the PPP and GECOM’s tabulation numbers being different. It was GECOM’s decision to subvert transparency and conduct a sham process; GECOM refused to allow a proper examination of the SOPs during the tabulation process.
The following must also be noted: the incumbent administration (1) was the party that gained from GECOM’s subversive actions; (2) has been at the forefront of obstructing an open, transparent and credible recount, ably aided by elements within GECOM; (3) has exploited Covid-19 to preclude international observers, and to sideline members of the opposition from being present to observe said recount; and (4) has rejected a simple, efficient and methodical recount.
Given that Mr. Harry-Voglezon has accepted that GECOM was inefficient and acted suspiciously, and evaluating the totality of empirical evidence to date, the public can reasonably infer, on a balance of probabilities, that GECOM and the incumbent APNU+AFC are intent on hijacking the country’s electoral mandate. The court of public opinion was a witness, in real time, to GECOM’s shenanigans. Any independent court tasked with determining if electoral fraud (a legally defined concept) occurred, and guided by the rule of law, would, at minimum, order GECOM to produce the SOPs (basic discovery).
It really matters not which political party benefits from our tireless advocacy for Guyana’s democratic will. What matters is that the central institution of democracy – elections – is not snatched from the citizens.
I beg to disagree with Mr. Harry-Voglezon’s notion that the level of transparency, particularly with respect to the electoral process, will vary based on the observer’s country of origin. Whether in Guyana, Canada or the United Kingdom, there must be a fair, robust, transparent and credible elections process. That is the standard.
The leadership of GECOM enjoys zero credibility at this time. GECOM’s employees, beginning with the Chairperson and senior staff, have maligned their own reputations through their suspect actions. The public and opposition parties would not need to exercise the extreme level of scrutiny and vigilance if they had an iota of confidence in GECOM. GECOM’s lack of credibility cannot be blamed on Stabroek News. Absent independent media, Guyana’s situation would have been more dire.
From all indicators, it seems that GECOM thinks its sole obligation is to the APNU+AFC. While I can appreciate that some of GECOM’s staff are decent and honourable, they are unfortunately influenced by unscrupulous individuals who placed their personal agenda ahead of their professional and constitutional duties. This is what should move Mr. Harry-Voglezon into action. It is a travesty that the Commission was so vitiated that, in public perception, it seems to be an inalienable arm of the incumbent APNU-AFC.
Guyana did not need to go through an arduous, unduly complex, and, in Mr. Harry-Voglezon’s words, “forensic” recount process. This was not an opportunity for a “do over” to allow GECOM and the incumbent APNU-AFC a second opportunity to (1) vitiate the process; (2) exploit Covid-19 to eliminate observers; (3) drag out the process interminably; (4) use the security forces to humiliate and intimidate; (5) exploit the administrative arms of the state to repress openness and transparency; and (6) exhaust everyone into submission.
If Mr. Harry-Voglezon and his fellow travellers were serious about democracy, accountability, transparency, and the rule of law, they would, at minimum, demand that GECOM and the APNU+AFC publish their copies SOPs for Region 4. This should be followed by ardent advocacy for the greatest degree of transparency for the recount, the largest possible number of observers, and for the independent media to be able to provide a real-time audio-visual broadcast of the recount. That they are not advocating for such transparency and accountability is the message in itself. It is simply noise.
Yours faithfully,
Kowlasar Misir
