Dear Editor,
Mainstream media carried letters to the editor headlined: ‘GECOM has once again contrived to appoint a PPP/C preferred candidate to a senior position.’ Another stated – ‘Alexander accuses GECOM of contriving to appoint a PPP/C preferred candidate to position of DCEO’. In both instances, the words ‘contrive’ and ‘preferred’ were used repeatedly to convey an untruthful message that the chairperson at GECOM is complicit to decisions that are partial and prejudicial. The author of the letter is APNU+AFC GECOM Commissioner Vincent Alexander.
In the course of recent interviews to determine the most suitable applicant for the post of Deputy Chief Elections Officer (DCEO) at GECOM, one thing became certain, there was no need to find an algorithmic way of working out who was the preferred candidate for the opposition commissioners, and in order to achieve that objective they sought to disparage the professionalism of Mr. Aneal Giddings and at the same time ‘big up’ the credentials of their preferred candidate.
The opposition commissioners conveniently ignored the travesty they committed when they sat to give a free pass to Ms. Roxanne Meyers, who did not possess the necessary years of experience at GECOM to perform the functions of a DCEO but was foisted onto the Commission primarily because her placement in their view, would help achieve a strategic political objective; to get the APNU+AFC back in government at all costs. In an effort to play down this misdeed, they now pontificate sanctimoniously, ‘two wrongs don’t make a right!’
It appears that because the three PPP/C GECOM Commissioners disagree with the three opposition commissioners on how to weigh and prioritise different values in respect to democracy, transparency, accountability and good governance, they are accused along with the chairman of ‘contriving’ to frustrate the wishes/demands of the opposition commissioners on key issues at GECOM. The opposition commissioners have failed to reconcile their understanding of how to conduct an unfair election with how a free and fair election ought to be conducted. Small wonder why their preferred candidate for the post of DCEO could not explain what ought NOT occur at a free and fair election.
Rather than trying to learn from new perspectives thrown up from past electoral experiences that might otherwise would help them, opposition commissioners prefer to pay attention to minutiae and unimplementable practices which, if implemented, would cause great harm to a free and fair electoral process. Our mandate is to prevent that from happening. Our vigilance to prevent another electoral fiasco is an important modus operandi we must constantly exercise for our own survival as a proud democratic nation unlike the fanciful endeavours of the political opposition whose attempt to steal the results of the 2020 election would have left Guyana a failed and pariah state with its populace unprotected from the vagaries of this world.
From the antics performed by opposition members at GECOM it is clear that there is no space to open up to their minds to a more transparent and democratic approach to elections. The PPP/C Commissioners prefer change and innovation to the status quo ante but regrettably, this is seen by Messers VA, CB & DT as support for ‘contrived decisions’ and decisions based on ‘gymnastics.’ Mr. Alexander and company’s rejection to find approaches that better allow our competing interests and values to be reconciled has proven untenable. The more contextual knowledge and supportive approaches both sides share on the ways and means of achieving a free and fair election, the more it will be easier to come to wise decisions that reinforces the democratic process in general and a free and fair election in particular.
Since the opposition commissioners have opted to jettison that approach, differences in perspective turn into standoffs resulting in impasse where each side employs different standards of good reasoning, and criticize each other for failing to meet standards viewed from each other’s perspective.
Malintended inferences made principally by opposition commissioners, only serve to translate simplistic thoughts to surreal ones void of enriching the exchange of views on important matters which the Guyanese people expect GECOM to address with a sense of urgency, the sole objective being the holding of free and fair election.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee