So long as our two large ethnic parties are able to manipulate elections to win over 50% of the votes, even the limited improvement in political accountability our kinds of societies can gain from developing into multiethnic societies, where governments arise out of ethnic group compromise, is lost. In this context, those who believe that a third force or an Amerindian party will make a political difference will have to wait a very long time: 40 years has been the promise! So far as I am concerned, given the nature of our heterogeneity, elections manipulation is an existential threat to all Guyanese and must be destroyed at its roots and my experience tells me that the roots are not to be found in what happens on an elections day. The problem is that the statement by the Indiana USA Supreme Court in the case of Pabey v Pastrick (2004) is quite appropriate to Guyana. ‘[I]t is apparent that a political subculture exists which views the political machinations at issue with a ‘wink and a smile’ and ‘business as usual.’
The Heritage Foundation’s Elections Fraud Database in a sampling of recent proven instances of elections fraud across the USA stated: ‘The database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list. … It is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed’. Noting that that the history of voter fraud is as old as the United States itself, the Foundation listed 1,285 proven fraudulent electoral convictions, 1,110 of which led to criminal convictions and 48 to civil convictions. It stated that the right to vote in a free and fair election … ‘should guarantee that every eligible individual is able to vote and that no one’s vote is stolen or diluted. Voter fraud is real. …’ The Foundation listed the following types of voter fraud which Guyanese will not find unfamiliar and if these still exist in a mature democracy like the USA, what makes them impossible in Guyana today?
• Impersonation fraud at the polls: Voting in the name of other legitimate voters and voters who have died, moved away, or lost their right to vote because they are felons, but remain registered.
• False registrations: Voting under fraudulent voter registrations that either use a phony name and a real or fake address or claim residence in a particular jurisdiction where the registered voter does not actually live and is not entitled to vote.
• Duplicate voting: Registering in multiple locations and voting in the same election in more than one jurisdiction or state.
• Fraudulent use of absentee ballots: Requesting absentee ballots and voting without the knowledge of the actual voter; or obtaining the absentee ballot from a voter and either filling it in directly and forging the voter’s signature or illegally telling the voter who to vote for.
• Buying votes: Paying voters to cast either an in-person or absentee ballot for a particular candidate.
• Illegal “assistance” at the polls: Forcing or intimidating voters—particularly the elderly, disabled, illiterate, and those for whom English is a second language—to vote for particular candidates while supposedly providing them with ‘assistance.’
• Ineligible voting: Illegal registration and voting by individuals who are not U.S. citizens, are convicted felons, or are otherwise not eligible to vote.
• Altering the vote count: Changing the actual vote count either in a precinct or at the central location where votes are counted.
• Ballot petition fraud: Forging the signatures of registered voters on the ballot petitions that must be filed with election officials in some states for a candidate or issue to be listed on the official ballot.’
I have argued that given the events on elections day, it is political grandstanding to fault the condemnations of local and foreign observers. However, the observers must also be aware that what occurred on elections day is only a small part of the elections process and that it cannot be dismissed out of hand if at any stage credible evidence is produced that the process had been undermined. It might be unusual but this still holds true even if the accusations come from those who had previously claimed to have won the elections. Not to follow such a course would be to allow a rigger that gets past the more visible stage of the process to get away scot-free. Anti-doping rules in sports are suggestive of a possible best practice in electoral politics. If before, during or long after the games, you are found to have broken the rules you can be prevented for lengthy periods from future participation in such games, have your winnings/medals/trophies taken away and may even have to repay the sponsorship rewards you have received as a result of your ‘winning’.
It is the duty of the state and its various arms to ensure that elections are free and fair.
The Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom) is the constitutionally ‘independent’ body that represents the state in the electoral process, and it has decided to work with an agreement between the coalition and the PPP that – based upon the Gazetted order – a recount of all the votes should be the basis for declaring the winner of the elections. Of course, that order must be rooted in certain principles to which the Commission can appeal if faced with novel situations that they conclude require solutions. One such principle has already been elucidated: the elections process ‘should guarantee that every eligible individual is able to vote and that no one’s vote is stolen or diluted’ by way of fictitious voting.
GECOM cannot logically present a legitimate winner without first taking into consideration the illegalities etc. that the coalition claims to have unearthed but the commission may well find that some of the issues raised by the coalition are matters for an elections petition but that others need to be immediately factored into its final decision.
That said, the historic penchant for delaying the hearings of election petitions is another obstacle that will have to be hurdled. At the end of the day, if the PPP did no wrong let it and other interested parties keep keen eyes on the unfolding process to ensure that Gecom acts appropriately.
There is a general, moral and operational principle to which the general public should hold fast. After former President Evo Morales of Bolivia was brought down partly on claims of elections fraud made by the Organisation of American States monitoring mission some South American leaders and institutions condemned his removal. However, President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil tweeted, ‘The lesson for us is the need, in the name of democracy and transparency, to count votes that can be audited’ (An audit brought down Morales. SN: 20/12/2019).
