The voters’ list is created by law. It is extracted from the national register when an order is made by the Elections Commission. The national register is created pursuant to the provisions of the National Registration Act and under the supervision of the Elections Commission. In the past, the national register was compiled by periodic, house-to-house, registration. Some years ago, a system of continuous registration was implemented whereby registration takes place all the year round at fixed registration offices. This eliminated, as it was intended to, the need for periodic, nationwide, house-to-house compilation of the national register.
Periodic, house-to-house, registration had resulted in the past in the scrapping of the then existing national register and the creation of a new one. This new national register did not capture the names of persons who had migrated or otherwise left Guyana since the creation of the previous national register. This is because they were not present in Guyana during the house-to-house visits by registration officials. The change in the system of national registration from periodic house-to-house visits to continuous registration meant that the national register retained the names of persons who had registered while residing in Guyana but had left Guyana at some point since.
Therefore, the dilemma posed by continuous registration is that the voters’ list becomes disproportionately large in relation to the resident population. The voters’ list would not be disproportionate in relation to the combined size of both the resident and non-resident population, both of which have the right to register and to vote. Complaints about the size of the voters’ list never take into consideration: (1) the change in the registration system from periodic house-to-house to continuous registration, and (2) the right of non-residents to be on the voters list.
The size of the voters list became an issue of controversy at the 2020 elections. The Opposition claimed that it was “bloated,” notwithstanding that the APNU+AFC Government could have passed the relevant legislation to prepare a new voters’ list by house-to-house registration if they so wished. The propaganda, however, somehow placed the responsibility for the “bloated” list on the PPP with the allegation that for that reason alone, the elections were either tainted, not free and fair, or were rigged. If the Opposition is to be believed, the PPP engineered thousands of persons to vote for persons on the voters’ list who were not in Guyana. This claim was debunked by the “Report of the Caricom Observer Team for the Recount of Guyana March 02, 2020, Elections.”
The voters’ list has now grown larger. For the 2020 elections the voters’ list had 661,378 names and the population for that year, according to the World Bank, was 797,202. According to Mr. Vincent Alexander, a member of the Elections Commission, as of 1 March 2024 it contains 706,439 names out of a population of 780,000 (Guyana’s population for 2023 according to the World Bank was 813,834). He said that the school age population is estimated to be 200,000 and, therefore, the voting population ought to be 580,000. He concludes that the voters’ list has 126,439 more names than it should have. Should have? Mr. Alexander attributed the excess names to be those of non-residents, that is, persons who have migrated or otherwise left Guyana after they have registered. But Mr. Alexander knows that non-residents have a right to vote and, consequently, a right to be on the voters’ list! He also knows that the Chief Justice has ruled that they cannot be removed from the list. Why, therefore, the complaint?
It is not expected that the Opposition will accept a voters’ list of disproportionate size relative to the resident population as fit for the upcoming elections. It is likely to contend that such a list is a nefarious plot by the PPP to rig the elections. The PNCR has accused the PPP of rigging every election since 1992, (except the elections of 2015 which it won), even though the PPP had no governmental authority for the 1992 and 2020 elections. This pattern is likely to continue in relation to the elections due next year. It does not matter that the Opposition would be unable to mount any credible electoral challenge to the PPP because the PNCR is experiencing significant internal distress, and the AFC has become “dead meat.” The Opposition needs an answer for its failure to achieve past successes – 70 percent of the votes in 1973, 77 percent in 1980 and 78 percent in 1985!
The explanations above as to why it is inevitable that the voters’ list is or would be disproportionately large, is admittedly convoluted. The explanation cannot be compressed in a credible sound bite. The PPP would therefore be distracted during the election campaign by having to explain why the voters’ list is so large in comparison with the resident population. It would therefore be a useful to consider the creation of a new national register by house-to-house registration in order to eliminate what would be a major source of distraction during the election campaign. Non-residents who wish to register can be accommodated on a separate list. A window of time now exists to start the process. It will close in a few months.
(This column is reproduced with
permission from Ralph Ramkarran’s blog, www.conversationstree.gy)
