Dear Editor,
One thing we can all agree on irrespective of our political persuasion or affiliation is that GECOM and the rest of the election administration needs reform. The last thing we want is a repeat of last year’s election crisis. To go into the next elections with the same GECOM arrangements and expect a different chain of events is sheer folly. It would undermine our claims to nationhood. If we have what is clearly a problem and cannot demonstrate the wherewithal to formulate and execute a solution, we forgo serious claims to call ourselves a nation. The present GECOM structure with three representatives each from the PPPC and APNU/AFC sides is a dysfunctional arrangement that can only lead to acrimony and deadlock. And it is unconscionable to think that we can go into the next general elections with the same GECOM executive personnel that have been tainted by last year’s events. In addition to this dysfunctional set up, there is the question of the credibility of the electoral system. Credibility – the ability to inspire confidence in the integrity and fairness of the system – is the very currency of an electoral system. It goes without saying that the Guyana electoral administration does not enjoy that confidence in its credibility to any acceptable extent.
As anyone familiar with my previous letters would be aware, I am a strong advocate for electoral system reform in Guyana. I believe the country needs comprehensive reform of its electoral system – the rules governing how the electorate selects a government and how Parliamentary representatives relate to the citizens they represent. I also accept the urgent need to reform the election management machinery, i.e., GECOM’s structure and operations. From that point of view, the Government’s decision to tackle GECOM reform is welcome, but some aspects of its proposal are setting off alarm bells that this could degenerate into the usual party conflict with no durable solution in sight. I remain convinced that the decision to use IIR to execute the project shows disregard for the sensitivities of the situation and a lack of depth and ownership of the process on the part of the Guyana Government. It cannot be overstressed that a genuine consultation process with non-political citizens is necessary for a successful reform. The Government has indicated that its reform project will incorporate a process of national consultations. How comprehensive and representative these consultations will be in reaching the widest cross-section of the population in a meaningful way remains to be seen. The timetable for execution of the project is an immediate red flag. It is hard to imagine that the government can execute a sufficiently comprehensive and effective consultation process in three to four months. And then the Government proposes to take a draft proposal to Parliament for debate as part of its commitment to an inclusive process. Under the existing governance arrangements of the country, this proposal shows a callous disregard for the population’s intelligence.
As is well known, Guyana’s National Assembly operates under a winner-take-all system. It is anything but a forum for dialogue and compromise. Once a matter goes there, the resolution boils down to the numbers with the majority party almost guaranteed to have their way. Invariably, what passes for parliamentary debate is a pure party power contest with consideration of the day-to-day struggles of the population left behind. This is how our governance system works and why reform of GECOM and electoral administration is not enough. The vision must be to improve the country’s institutional and political conditions as a key to achieving the prosperity we can have. Electoral reform must get away from divisive party power struggles, and put true representation of citizens, inclusiveness and accountability into the system. The only way to achieve this is through reform of the electoral system with a strong dose of citizen participation. Civil society must maintain vigilance and play a meaningful role in all electoral reform processes to achieve genuine change.
Sincerely,
Dr. Desmond Thomas