While Guyana still labours to arrive at an election result which should have been declared two months ago but which the incumbent coalition is going to great lengths to try and amend, Suriname went to the polls on May 25, and the outcome is already clear. Preliminary results show President Desi Bouterse’s party as having lost, being reduced to 16 seats from the 26 they held previously. Parliament has 51 seats in total.
Surinamese constitutional arrangements are different from ours in that the electorate in the neighbouring country votes for parties to represent them in the National Assembly, but not for the president. An election for the head of state and government is held later by the legislature, and in this case it will happen in August.
Suriname governments are always coalitions, because no party on its own ever has the numbers to win an overall majority, so when a dominant party manages to stitch together a coalition which can command such a majority, its leader will generally become the presidential nominee. That nominee, however, has to be approved by a two-thirds majority of Parliament, and if that is not achieved, then something called a People’s Assembly is called, which is formed of members of the National Assembly together with representatives of the regions and municipalities who were elected in the national poll. Only a simple majority of this body is required to elect the president.
De Ware Tijd reported that prior to the election all the opposition parties had indicated they would not ally with the NDP, so it is very unlikely, therefore, that Mr Bouterse would be in a position to become the new president. The largest party following the election appears to be the VHP led by Mr Chan Santhoki, whom Guyanese might remember as a former Justice Minister. His party now has 20 seats, up from the nine it held previously. Even if he puts together a coalition, which he might well do, he would not get the two-thirds majority he needs for the presidency if Mr Bouterse decided to block him in the election in the National Assembly. Under such circumstances, a People’s Assembly would have to be called.
If the Guyana election was deemed by everyone as free and fair, something about which all the overseas observer missions – Caricom, the OAS, the Commonwealth, the Carter Center, the EU – were in accord, the same was not quite true of its Suriname counterpart. A report from the Associated Press mentioned “widespread problems in voting.” It went on to say, “Opposition parties and good governance groups already had raised claims of irregularities on election day, and the suspension brought new questions about the dangers of electoral fraud.”
The “suspension” was a reference to the fact that after 73% of the votes had been counted, the Independent Electoral Council of Suriname ceased work because of the “exhaustion” of the tabulation staff. DWT quoted Mike Nerkust, the Chairman of the chief polling station as telling Apintie TV “We’ve been running for 36 hours. I understand everyone’s desire to hear the results, but we’re just people.” This interruption would certainly have resonance for Guyanese voters.
That aside, the report identified the OAS Observer mission as reporting numerous irregularities during voting. However, interestingly, the Caricom observers were not in agreement, calling the comments “heavily exaggerated”. The team was quoted as saying at a news conference, “Attention has been paid to almost all serious reports of possible electoral fraud. The mission has not been able to establish this anywhere.”
The DWT said that local organizations had rejected the Caricom conclusions, the head of the independent Electoral Bureau, Jennifer van Dijk-Silos describing them as “the most chaotic elections” she had ever experienced. One of the opposition members of the National Assembly claimed he had seen ballot boxes which had already been opened being delivered to the counting centre.
For all of that there is no suggestion yet, at least, that anyone intends to challenge the results, and if they are confirmed then it might well be that Suriname has reached the end of an era − although one must add the caveat that when one is talking about President Bouterse one can never be too sure. Certainly Guyana has never had a head of government with quite his level of political baggage or capacity for reinvention.
He first came to international notice in 1980, when he led a coup (the Sergeants’ Coup) against Suriname’s first prime minister, Henck Arron. After following the standard pattern of military dictators by suppressing all democratic freedoms, he eventually acceded to an election under great international pressure in 1987. He came to an arrangement with the new government whereby he would remain in charge of the military, but in 1990 he executed his second coup and dismissed all the ministers by telephone. Since then it has often been referred to as the Telephone Coup. A free and fair election in 1991 brought an end to this episode.
Thereafter he resorted to the democratic path, and eventually succeeded to office by a legitimate route in 2010, being re-elected in 2015. That the electorate could have voted for him at all, given his history, says nothing for their commitment to having persons of integrity represent them. But then the Suriname voters are not alone in this. That said, it has to be recognised that Mr Bouterse’s personal history was quite shocking.
The worst of his crimes related to the 1982 murder of 15 citizens in Fort Zeelandia, Paramaribo. Those killed included union leaders, journalists and university lecturers, and while he has admitted political responsibility since he was leader of the regime at the time, he has always denied personal involvement. This was challenged in compelling evidence given to the court in 2012. The trial for these killings had begun in 2007, and in 2012 the National Assembly granted an amnesty to those involved. This, however, was overturned by the court, and eventually in 2019 Mr Bouterse was convicted and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. His appeal against conviction is yet to be heard.
In 1999 he was convicted in absentia in a Dutch court to 11 years for trafficking in cocaine, something which he has also denied. It was alleged he was the leader of the Suri-kartel which smuggled cocaine from Suriname and Brazil into Europe. There is a Europol warrant out for his arrest which is still valid. It might be mentioned that his son too has fallen foul of the law and is currently serving a sentence in the US for drug smuggling, among other things.
But the other episode about which questions have been asked is the Moiwana Massacre, that occurred at the beginning of the war between the government and the maroons in 1986, when Mr Bouterse was president. In November of that year the home village of the maroon leader was attacked by soldiers and at least 39 mostly women and children killed. No one has ever been held to account, and the first police investigator to work on the case was murdered. No one has ever been held for his killing either.
There would be a certain irony if Mr Santhoki were in fact to become president, because he was a former police commissioner who at one period led the inquiries into the 1982 murders. As Justice Minister he cracked down on crime, and in particular, trafficking in narcotics, as Guyanese may recall from the Roger Khan era. It was he who authorised Mr Khan’s deportation to Trinidad, rather than back to Guyana, which made possible his extradition to the US.
