Dear Editor,
I share the concern that the Inter-national Republican Institute’s (IRI’s) record and associations make it a poor choice for a major role in Guyana’s electoral reform programme. How can we be comfortable working to reform our system with an organization linked to a party accused of voter suppression efforts and insurrection? Its associations with powerful lobbies raise questions even in the US. This ill-advised partnership with IRI on electoral reform follows a long history of questionable, controversial decisions by governments of Guyana. Just when the discovery of oil raised the hopes of the nation we went ahead and virtually gave up billions of dollars in potential benefits. One major party negotiated a poor contract and the other one endorsed it. Then there was the controversial Payara development plan review with clouds hanging over the suitability of the consultant hired and the thoroughness of the process. And these are just a couple of recent examples that come to mind. At the root of this is a political system that is completely lacking in accountability, in which there are no sanctions or consequences for politicians for bad decisions that cost the country dearly.
Another question I have, is why do we need the US assistance for this project at all? It is not as if this project is a huge capital expense. At around G$230 million, the cost of this project is less than a tenth of one percent of the government budget expenditure of G$383.1 billion dollars for 2021. If electoral reform matters so much for Guyana – and it does – would it not be worth the while for the country to finance the project independently? Then we can partner with whoever is most suitable, such as a multinational agency like UNDP or the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), specialised in electoral reform matters. This would show how serious we are about something as important as electoral reform.
The tendency to depend on foreign funding and initiatives that this project reveals reflects an attitude of mendicancy. This attachment to ‘freeness’ contributes to policy incoherence as activities are guided by the availability of funds from overseas rather than independent analysis and assessment of our people’s needs and interests. The country needs its leadership to demonstrate more self-confidence, and determination to put the interests of the population above all and confront the country’s challenges with competence and dignity.
Sincerely,
Dr. Desmond Thomas
