In their final report on the March 2nd polls, the European Union Election Observer Mission (EU EOM) has said that the integrity of the entire electoral process was “seriously compromised” by vote count in Region Four and has cited the senior Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) officials for acting in violation of the law.
“Voting, counting and the tabulation of results in nine of Guyana’s ten regions were generally well managed,” the report, which was released today, states. “However, the integrity of the entire electoral process was seriously compromised by the non-transparent and non-credible tabulation of results in the largest and decisive Region 4 by senior Guyana Elections Commission officials, acting in blatant violation of the law and High Court orders issued in this regard.”
The controversy over the count has resulted in the ongoing national recount, which is expected to be concluded this weekend, ahead of a final declaration of the results.
According to the report, voting on March 2 was well managed and largely peaceful. Counting, it added, was conducted in a transparent manner, but reconciliation procedures were not always followed, leading to some minor difficulties in the preparation of results protocols.
However, it notes that after a transparent, largely uncontested tabulation was completed in most regions, the process abruptly derailed into chaos and confusion amidst obstruction tactics by election officials in decisive Region 4. “On 5 March, the Returning Officer (RO) declared results without having tabulated them in the presence of party agents and observers as required by law. After these results were annulled by the Chief Justice as unlawful, GECOM still allowed the same RO to rush through the rest of the tabulation without any transparency in blatant violation of the law and explicit court orders, and to make a second declaration of unverified results on 13 March,” the report highlights. .
It says the results declared by the RO on March 13 are not credible. These results gave APNU+AFC and PPP/C 136,057 and 77,231 votes, respectively, for the general elections in Region 4, which would be enough for the ruling coalition to overcome the opposition’s advantage in the other regions and take the lead nationally. At the same time, the PPP/C’s parallel tabulation suggested the opposite outcome, with the ruling coalition gaining 114,416 votes to its 80,150 votes in the region, thus placing the PPP/C ahead nationally.
The report further says that with confidence in GECOM already undermined by limited inclusiveness and transparency, post-election developments exposed a dysfunctional commission unable to control its own secretariat. “The commission’s deliberations, decisions, instructions and essential electoral data were not accessible to the public. The lack of institutional engagement with election stakeholders contributed to most political parties being left out and the general public being underinformed. The bipartisan composition of the commission resulted in excessive polarisation, affecting its ability to function as a collegiate body, and at times to function at all,” it says. “Inability to reach common ground and take timely decisions gave its secretariat disproportionate discretion over the administration of the elections. By failing to take decisive action as the electoral process derailed into chaos and illegality, GECOM abdicated its constitutional duty to take all actions necessary to ensure compliance with the law by any of its officials, despite unequivocal powers to remove and exercise disciplinary control over them,” it adds.
The report can be accessed at www.eueomguyana.eu.
Among the findings highlighted in the report’s summary are:
• • In the general elections, voters were electing 65 representatives to the National Assembly whereby the President is elected indirectly. The election of 205 councillors in ten Regional Democratic Councils was held concurrently. While voters had a variety of choice, two historical, largely eth-nicity-based opponents dominated the electoral race, polarising the Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guy-anese electorate. The two previous elections had very tight outcomes, leading to one-seat majorities and early elections in both terms. Since then the stakes were raised by the discovery of large offshore oil reserves and expectations of far-reaching economic transformations.
• • A successful vote of no confidence in the government in December 2018 resulted in a series of legal challenges and appeals which significantly delayed the elections. In June 2019, the Caribbean Court of Justice upheld the vote of no confidence. The Court characterised the president and gov-ernment as caretaker and invoked in its judgement the constitutional timeline of three months, implying that elections were to be held by September 2019 at the latest. However, this new dead-line was not respected and the president announced on 1 October 2019 that the general and regional elections would be held on 2 March 2020, 15 months after the no confidence motion.
• • The legal framework provides a reasonable basis for competitive elections, but numerous gaps and ambiguities create legal uncertainty and reduce transparency. The electoral laws are fragmented and unconsolidated, and court decisions are not easily accessible. Key shortcomings include unregulated registration and operations of political parties, mostly unregulated campaign finance, lack of provisions prohibiting misuse of state resources, full discretion of parties to select their parliamentarians after the elections, no guarantee for women’s representation in parliament and lack of transparency in the publication of the results.
• • The list of electors was generally inclusive, despite fervent controversies over its preparation and accuracy. A total of 660,998 voters were registered for the 2020 elections, well above the estimated resident adult population, in part due to high emigration rates. A disputed decision by GECOM to conduct a new house-to-house enumeration contributed to substantial delays in the elections. The enumeration however indicated the limited ability of continuous registration to maintain an up-to-date register. Protracted litigations and disputes over the validity of data garnered during the truncated exercise prevented their integration into the existing register in time for the period of claims and objections, and concerns were raised that some changes were not reflected in the final list.
• • There are no unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand, except that there is no provision for independent candidates. 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, each with a presidential candidate, and two for regional elections only.
• • The incumbent ruling coalition, A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) representing predominantly the Afro-Guyanese population, and the opposition, People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) representing predominantly the Indo-Guyanese population, clearly dominated an intense campaign. Other parties were barely visible. All contestants could campaign freely, although some PPP/C events were disrupted by APNU+AFC supporters. Both key contestants made extensive use of negative campaigning. In a largely unregulated environment, GECOM invited all parties to sign a code of conduct three days before election day, too late to have a real impact on the campaign.
• • The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) observed the misuse of state re-sources by the ruling coalition. APNU+AFC used the advantages of incumbency to appeal to vot-ers through development programmes. The mission saw governmental donations provided in the context of APNU+AFC campaign events in particular in Region 9, where the majority of voters are from the indigenous population. To a lesser extent, PPP/C was also observed using state re-sources at regional level. In-kind vote buying in indigenous communities was a widely reported practice of both APNU+AFC and PPP/C.
• • The legal framework did not sufficiently provide for transparency, accountability and oversight in political party and campaign finance, contributing to an unlevel playing field. Parties and candi-dates raised funds from private sources in-country and abroad, without any limitations regarding the source or amount of donation, and with limited obligations to disclose sources of funding or report on expenditure. The campaign demonstrated that APNU+AFC and PPP/C had significant funds at their disposal, unmatched by any other party. With consent of the main contenders, GECOM did not assume its oversight responsibility to monitor campaign finance. Several parties spoke out for enhancing finance regulations, underlining the need for reforms in this field.
• • The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, and media were generally able to freely cover the electoral process. The media environment is highly politicised, with very few independent out-lets. The law does not provide sufficient safeguards to ensure the political independence of state-owned media and the broadcast media supervisory body, which failed to exercise its oversight role. The EU EOM media monitoring showed that state media were largely biased in favour of the ruling coalition, and most private media provided highly partisan electoral coverage in favour of one of the two main political forces. While there was an extensive use of paid promotional content, there were no political debates. All this negatively affected voters’ ability to make an informed choice.
• • Online and social media were important information-sharing platforms that increased the diversity of views during the campaign and fostered transparency of the process, particularly in the post-election day period. Campaigning online is not regulated in the law. The legal framework pertaining to online environment is overall rudimentary, and there is no specific data protection and privacy legislation. While used as key campaign vehicles by political actors, social platforms also channeled massive amounts of derogatory messages, false narratives and racially heated comments contributing to confusion and division among Guyanese. Overall, the use of paid advertising on social platforms lacked transparency and accountability.
• • Positively, three out of nine presidential candidates and over 40 per cent of all candidates contesting the general elections were women. Women also held about a third of seats in the outgoing parliament and almost half of cabinet seats. However, while the law requires that at least a third of all candidates are women, there is no obligation on a party or coalition to actually select women to take up elected seats. This lack of guarantee for women participation is not in line with Guyana’s Constitution and international commitments.
• • Indigenous people represent around 11 per cent of Guyana’s population. Most members of indig-enous communities were reportedly registered to vote. Guyana has a history of having indigenous representatives in the legislature and the executive. Both main contestants had four elected members from indigenous communities in the last parliament, had indigenous candidates on their lists, and undertook efforts to reach out to indigenous voters. One smaller party nominated a presidential candidate from an indigenous community. The EU EOM did not observe any voter education specifically targeting indigenous people. Furthermore, the indigenous population was largely absent from the election administration.
• • Guyana has not yet fulfilled its commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to facilitate voting for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others. The foreseen options in the law – voting by proxy and assisted voting – do not sufficiently protect the secrecy of the ballot. On election day, access to and layout of up to one third of all polling stations observed were unsuitable for voters with reduced mobility. GECOM did not take up civil society recommendations to provide simple aids, such as ramps to buildings and stencils for visu-ally impaired, resulting in some persons with disabilities not being able to vote independently.
• • Electoral dispute resolution mechanisms are available mainly through judicial dispensation. Once the date of elections is officially announced, all election-related disputes, except for challenges related to voter and candidate registration, should be raised only after the elections by way of election petitions. The right to an effective remedy is not ensured as there are no deadlines for rendering decisions on electoral disputes. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal should be commended for the way they dealt with the two critical post-election legal challenges related to the tabulation and recount process. Despite the lack of legal time limits and operational restrictions put in place due to the Covid-19 pandemic, both cases were adjudicated expeditiously, and the rulings facilitated further steps to restore the legality of the election process.
• • After limited presence on election day, citizen observers played an important role in observing the tabulation in some regions, and particularly in Region 4. Joining forces in order to share collected polling station results, they contributed to increased scrutiny on the flawed tabulation process. Furthermore, a number of citizen observers remained mobilised for many weeks after the elections in view of an expected national recount.
Recommendations
The EU EOM has 26 recommendations for improving elections in Guyana. They include eight priority recommendations:
1. Review and consolidate the fragmented election legislation to strengthen legal clarity and certainty.
2. Launch a national consultation process to overhaul the composition and functioning of the Elec-tions Commission, notably to ensure a more inclusive representation of the various components of the Guyanese society and political spectrum.
3. Develop, in a consultative process, effective legislation to regulate political finance, taking the principles of equality, transparency and accountability into account. Such legislation could pro-vide transparency in campaign incomes and establish reasonable limits for campaign expenditure as well as disclosure and reporting requirements and effective sanctions. Consideration may also be given to the establishment of an independent oversight body.
4. Introduce a legal and regulatory system that transforms the state-owned media into a genuine public service broadcaster. This includes provisions granting editorial independence, financial autonomy, clear separation from any government institution, and an open and competitive selec-tion process of its board members.
5. To foster transparency and accountability in online and offline campaigning, policymakers could consider introducing detailed reporting requirements for those who paid for sponsored materials as well as for those who received payments. In order to enable voters to easily distinguish between paid advertising and other information, any sponsored campaign-related material should be clearly labelled to indicate who paid for it.
6. Adopt clear written procedures for the transmission and tabulation of election results, notably to ensure consistency of the process in all regions, adequate traceability of handed over electoral documents, and possibility for all authorised stakeholders to examine SOPs as required by law.
7. Incorporate into law the obligation to accompany any declaration of results by simultaneous pub-lication of detailed polling station results and digital copies of all SOPs. In addition to the number of valid votes cast for each candidate list, these detailed results should also include all elements of electoral accounting to allow control of their coherence, such as number of registered voters; voters who voted; rejected ballots; spoiled ballots; etc.
8. Establish comprehensive election dispute resolution system to ensure effective and timely remedies throughout all stages of the electoral process.
