While acknowledging that the proposed amendments to the Representation of the People Act (RoPA) are a start in the process of electoral reform, civil society group ERG is contending that the proposal to divide Region Four – Guyana’s largest electoral district – into sub-districts is provocative and unjustified.
The Electoral Reform Group (ERG) made its position known in its recent submission to the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance.
One of the major changes the government proposes is the division of Region Four, the country’s largest electoral district, into four sub-districts – East Bank Demerara, East Coast Demerara, North Georgetown and South Georgetown – effectively adding a new section to Section 6 of RoPA, which deals with polling districts and divisions.
“Singling out Region 4 for special treatment is unjustified and provocative. It is an affront not to GECOM officials but to the residents of Region 4. If there is a need for the proposed measures, they must be applicable across the board,” the group said in response to the government proposing to split Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica) into four smaller sub-districts to “better manage” elections.
The draft amendments are a result of the debacle at the March 2nd 2020 general and regional elections which lasted exactly five months between balloting and the declaration of the final results. That was due to a series of twists and turns including several court challenges, reaching the highest Appellate Court – the Caribbean Court of Justice, moves to declare unverified results and a national recount of all ballots.
As a consequence of the events of the March 2020 elections, several former GECOM officials, including its Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, Deputy CEO Roxanne Myers, and Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, and political party officials were charged with election-related offences.
The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance released the draft amendments in early November and set aside a six-week review period. That period is now over.
In its December 19 submission to the government, the ERG said that the proposed amendments need to be supported by notation to show how they meet their objective and make election management more secure. The government has repeatedly stated that the proposed amendments are to ensure that there is no recurrence of the events that followed the March 2020 elections.
ERG says that the amendments start from a conceptual basis and are inconsistent with the recommendations provided by various election observer missions. It noted that a review of the comments and recommendations made by the observers shows a consistent pattern of calls for a comprehensive overhaul of Guyana’s electoral system.
The grouping also acknowledges that while the need to improve the Guyana Elections Commission’s (GECOM) effectiveness and credibility is evident, the government should not just be focusing on that. It added that electoral fraud is not a new concept in Guyana and dates back decades but solely concentrating on the unprecedented attempt to derail the 2020 election, is a step in the wrong direction.
“The effort to combat electoral fraud in Guyana requires an in-depth investigation of electoral management and processes…A reform of highest priority that Guyana needs is reform of the composition of GECOM and the way in which it is constituted. GECOM as currently constituted is dysfunctional and prone to deadlock… The proposed amendments fail to address fundamental GECOM reforms needed to improve the institution’s functioning and without which there can be no serious electoral reform,” ERG submitted.
Zeroing in on specific amendments the government proposed, ERG said that the proposals for the appointment of supernumerary and deputy supernumerary returning officers along with assistant agents, polling agents, alternate polling agents and counting agents, run contrary to proposals by the Electoral Assistance Bureau for the consolidation of polling stations. Additionally, the group said the government failed to take into account the additional costs, supervision and management of the elections process.
Furthermore, ERG submitted that the proposal to place polling stations in every village and locality is impractical and likely to create an administrative nightmare.
Among the standout amendments are the introduction of hefty fines and lengthy jail time for several election-related offences. The fines are in the millions while jail time ranges from three years to life. In response to that, ERG said “the increased fines and imprisonment penalties are excessive and counterproductive. They will have a deterrent effect in attracting quality personnel to election operations positions. Moreover, they are objectionable in terms of their relations to penalties for other crimes (e.g. murder and domestic abuse).”
Moreover, the group pointed to Sections 77 and 78 which speak to influencing the decision of an elector and interference of electors in the approach to a polling place respectively, questioning why no increase in penalties for those sections.
Suggestions
The Electoral Reform Group related that RoPA presents the government with the opportunity to accede to the repeated calls for stronger constituency representation and accountability of members of Parliament to citizens.
“…the amendments are deficient in not addressing measures such as an increase in the number of constituencies and amendments to the system to allow direct election of constituency MPs. This can be addressed directly in RoPA, which defines the number of constituencies, the allocation of seats in Parliament, and the rules for Party participation in national elections,” it noted.
In its submission, ERG suggested that there are another nine areas in RoPA that can be changed without requiring alterations of any other Act or Statute.
It identified Section 3(2) that deals with the party-list system and suggested that there exists the opportunity to reword the section so that the list could be ranked to ensure the electorate know who would be selected to represent them.
ERG said that there are opportunities to increase the constituency representation “to ensure some balance in representation e.g. set national average of 8,000 votes per seat i.e. voting population of 600,000 then 75 seats in parliament – seventy constituencies and 5 national top-up seats.” The group also submitted that government can consider limiting the top-up list to 5 using the existing system.
It further submitted that the requirement of parties to contest a minimum of 13 of the 25 constituency seats seeks to undermine the ability of smaller parties to contest the election. It also called for the incorporation of technology in the counting process in an effort to promptly transmit and publicise results of the voting in polling places and constituencies.
Dialogue
ERG said that it is worried about the lack of dedicated spaces for “stakeholders to discuss and deliberate together, as a means of achieving an increased national consensus on the proposed reforms.”
“While the ERG is heartened at public announcements by government representatives, including the Attorney General, that the RoPA amendment process will not be the only electoral reform process pursued by the Government, the lack of specificity on what will be later reformed, when, and how, unnecessarily reduces public confidence in the reform process.
“ERG is concerned that electoral reform processes are not reduced to a mere parliamentary show of strength – such as the RoPA amendments appear headed towards. Electoral reforms need to benefit from a national consensus if they are to have the desired effect,” it added.
ERG also urged the government to consider the extension of the period for public comments and the establishing a multi-stakeholder electoral reform committee that would work in conjunction with a state-funded Electoral Reform Secretariat to identify the entire raft of electoral reforms needed, and supporting processes to be completed ahead of 2025.
