Last Tuesday three ex-presidents and the current one held a forum at State House, sans Mr David Granger. It was effectively a “Think Tank” chirruped the state paper all a-flutter. Hardly. Apart from the fact that think-tanks are of an entirely different composition, it has to be said that three of the participants have been denizens of Freedom House for so long that it would be quite astonishing if they could surprise their comrades with anything they had not heard before. Even Mr Sam Hinds who was a member of the Civic component in government for more than twenty years, must be well acquainted with the drift of party thinking, although admittedly his counterparts may be less familiar with any radical thoughts which might have been gestating in his mind over the past five years.
The truth of the matter is that a meeting of this particular grouping involving only members from the same party or associated with it, did not require any ritual; the four of them could have hunkered down in some comfy armchairs and had an informal conversation at any time. As it is, however, these fora are to be institutionalised and held quarterly. Given all the publicity, a little curiosity inevitably was generated about what had emerged from the meeting. What President Irfaan Ali was reported by the Office of the President as saying about it was a little short on detail, although the participants apparently all agreed that constitutional and electoral reforms should be people driven.
Where electoral reform specifically was concerned, the release said ideas were discussed on how to strengthen the electoral system, have external support in our legislation (whatever that might mean), stronger penalties and a clearer definition in terms of the electoral system. If that was not exactly enlightening, earlier statements from Attorney General Anil Nandlall provided some context.
On December 7 we reported the AG as saying that the government had drafted a list of electoral reforms. If that has already been done, what is meant by the statement from the presidential forum that all the participants agreed constitutional and electoral reforms should be people driven? If there is a draft already in existence, and the ‘people’ have other suggestions not in tandem with the draft, would President Ali’s government then defer to the wishes of the people?
One of the priorities, according to the AG, was to strengthen the continuous registration process which could include making an external organisation responsible for registration. It would then present the data it had assembled to Gecom prior to elections. There would too, he said, be a legislative outline of how the votes in ballot boxes would be verified, and stiffer penalties for electoral crimes. In addition, offers of electoral aid from various countries and agencies would be taken up.
He also alluded to staffing, saying that hiring issues had to be addressed “so that the system attracts persons of integrity,” in addition to which it “must also reflect … the ethnic demographics of the country”. In short, in his view “the legislation and other aspects of the elections machinery will have to be scrutinized very carefully.”
It might be remarked that employing staff on the basis of the ethnic demographics of the country is not the same thing as hiring persons on the grounds of their integrity. It speaks volumes about the government’s pre-eminent concern in circumstances where it is at pains to convince the populace that inclusiveness is its true priority. One can only wonder if its real intention is indeed to write Gecom ethnic quotas into the revised electoral legislation, which would not only set a precedent in this country, but invite a slew of criticism.
The AG’s and by implication the President’s concerns mostly relate to mechanical issues, such as the one pertaining to an external agency compiling the voters’ register. This is a novel idea which conceivably might even attract support outside the government. Some of the other preoccupations are connected specifically to preventing a repeat of what occurred in the five months following the March 2nd election. Whether all of these plans, such as increasing the penalties for electoral criminality will be vastly more effective than what already obtains is possibly open to dispute.
Whatever the case, when civil society talks about electoral reform they have something far more fundamental in mind than does the government or the presidential forum. Whether or not it is coincidental, the AG spoke the day after the launch of a new civil society group which is seeking significant electoral reforms that it would like to see in place before the next general elections. The Electoral Reform Group, as it is called, intends to spend the next year reaching out to various communities to reach consensus on what reforms are necessary.
The economist Desmond Thomas, a member of the steering committee, explained at the launch that the intention is to “foster and support a civil society dialogue process aimed at formulating an electoral reform proposal for legislation and execution by 2025.”
Other lead members emphasised that no silver bullet for solving Guyana’s problems existed; however, there was the reminder that several countries had undergone electoral reform which provided significant examples of best practices which could be emulated. In a letter published in this newspaper subsequently, the group wrote that the ERG saw electoral reform as “the entry point that leads to broader reforms.” They did not deny the pessimism expressed by many citizens about the political leadership accepting the needed changes, and they quoted one as saying, “Political parties are dedicated to staying in power and are historically not the best engine of change that may impact their own power.”
There is, of course, an additional problem in this instance, and that is the culture of the PPP which is wedded to its Marxist-Leninist approach. While the vast majority of its members no longer adhere to the ideology, the party has never jettisoned the methods associated with that ideology. That is to say, it is obsessed with control, and as the vanguard party the need for it to be the originator of innovations. It may talk about inclusion, it may talk about people-driven reform, but that is not how it operates, especially if the ‘people’ fall outside its penumbra.
While the ERG will seek to include all the political parties in their dialogues, it is very much in doubt as to whether the PPP will cooperate with any initiative which derives from beyond the perimeter of Freedom House. Most recently there was the example of the refusal of President Ali to attend the National Conversation on improving ethnic relations because the Ethnic Relations Commission, so he maintained, “went into hiding” in the five months following the election, and failed to consult his government in the planning of the event.
Considering, as we reported, that contrary to what he asserted, the commission did issue statements on two occasions, it seems to come down to the lack of involvement of the government in the planning arrangements, although he personally was invited. Among other things he said the ERC was not functioning properly, and it had put in the midst of the conversation “persons who were part of the process to derail democracy”. We are certainly not going to get very far on the inclusiveness front if he is not going to talk to APNU+AFC sympathisers in any circumstances, although one has to ask whether he was not the one who invited Mr Granger to his presidential forum.
While it makes sense to approach constitutional reform through the avenue of electoral reform, it has to be remembered that it is also a very technical issue which will also require the input of some knowledgeable individuals. President Ali’s ‘people’ and the ERG’s ‘grass roots’ can outline the principles they want to see incorporated, but the majority of them will not be able to supply the details or the structure. There also needs to be a conversation at a different level, which Dr Henry Jeffrey, for example, had briefly introduced in his column on making MPs more accountable on August 12th this year.
In the end electoral reform of any meaningful kind depends on persuading the politicians, particularly whoever is in power. That is not an easy task, and will require a great deal of sustained pressure from a wide swathe of the community. It remains to be seen if the ERG can be the catalyst for this.
