Dear Editor,
There was a study done by the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) of Vanderbilt University. The results were recently published in its Pulse of Democracy Report, and it embodied some remarkable findings for the region, but especially as they pertain to Guyana. It covered a good number of countries, with both the good and not so good being given prominent feature, but I single out a couple of areas that attracted my interest, because they are loaded with meaning for this country and its peoples. Regrettably, I leave out important areas, such as the pandemic, corruption, and economy. First, there was this question posed: Having a strong leader in the government, even if the leader bends the rules to get things done. Would you say that it is very good, good, neither good nor bad, bad, or very bad as a form of government for our country? Guyana, which was not among the countries that was asked the military and executive coup questions, has the highest levels of support for a strong leader. To register this finding some more: Guyanese prefer a strong leader, EVEN IF THE LEADER BENDS THE RULES TO GET THINGS DONE (emphasis mine). I identify no leader, past or present, but I think their records speak clearly, as to what they have done (and do), and with what they are allowed to get away. I would say, even tacitly, many times openly, condoned. Leaders are tolerated here, even cherished here, for bending rules, mostly engaging in outright breaking of them.
Second, respondents were asked whether they think foreign governments influence elections in their country. A majority of respondents in the LAC region, sometimes large majorities, believe that foreign governments sometimes or always influence elections in their country. LAC is for Latin American and Caribbean. That a “majority” and “sometimes large majorities” believe this about foreign governments relative to local elections is startling. As well as I know that this phenomenon is not limited to Guyana, it nevertheless unsettles when I think of the volatility that is left behind. This is notwithstanding the usual cheerful celebratory chatter of the triumphant about democracy and free and fair process. Editor, what is even more relevant, and pointedly so, is the extent of the perception of foreign governments’ influence in our own elections. Interestingly enough, 87% of Guyanese respondents think foreigners influence their election results, never (13%), sometimes (60%) or always (27%). It may be a matter of degree or scale, but 87% can be interpreted to mean almost every Guyanese, when taken to the extreme. My own position relative to seasonal American involvements in Guyanese elections is well known. It is more than influence, but actually almost command and control. My thinking was that I was among the more highly skeptical in the local realm, but this is way more widespread that many of us believe. Third, there is the crucial element of trust within the citizenry and eligible voting population. I present directly from the LAPOP report: “But for elections to be an effective means of selecting governing representatives, citizens need to trust that electoral institutions are unbiased, elections are free and fair, and that the policies they pursue and the political system they uphold are legitimate.” As I see it, those are loaded words and phrases, namely, “effective means of selecting” and “elections institutions are unbiased” and “elections are free and fair” and “policies…and system they uphold…legitimate.” All of those are deeply troubling and divisive in Guyana, which was confirmed by the LAPOP report, as it noted that trust in elections stands at an abysmal 39%. It is an unsurprising number, which tells us that three out of five Guyanese distrust our elections process.
In a related question placed before Guyanese respondents about elections integrity, the findings are even worse. Only 18% in Colombia, Guyana, and Jamaica think that they possess integrity. Beliefs about elections integrity correlate with overall trust in elections and support for democracy (embraced more in the abstract in a number of societies). In Guyana, trust in elections, processes, institutions, and so forth are at such low levels, as to be almost nonexistent. It is against all these selective findings of LAPOP that I share something. It was and remains the highest imperative that we sincerely attempt, and work our way in across-the-board partnerships in the local sphere, to concretize an electoral reform process that is comprehensive and credible. That is, one which is transparent through and through for where it goes, and how far it went, to reverse the negatives now inarguably present in this pierced place. If and when foreign governments’ influence weighs so starkly in the minds of Guyanese, then whatever result we declare from always controversial elections only intensifies divisions and hatreds. And when trust is so conspicuously absent, then there is governmental, national, and individual duty-indeed, obligation-towards genuine efforts to dispel broad electoral darkness, and replace it with some substance. I will say nothing more about recent missed opportunities. But of this I have this final say: when considered across the range of dismissive resistances, it is not just process and people involved and denounced, but also any government that is the outcome of such, and the depth of the trust that is placed in it.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall
