In a statement on August 7th, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) responded to a news item in the August 3rd edition of Stabroek News in which the Alliance For Change (AFC) sought updates on an improved electoral system.
The AFC had noted that as of March this year, the voters list contained over 700,000 names, a figure, it asserts is “incongruous” with the population size. It then pressed the Chairperson on several issues arising out of its concerns. “While we acknowledge the court’s ruling on the removal of names from the list, the Chairperson must outline how the Commission plans to handle the bloated list and its implications for the next elections. It is crucial for the Chairperson to provide recommendations on achieving a more accurate and acceptable list of electors. Can the Chairperson assure the nation that the current system will inspire public confidence in the 2025 elections?”
According to the release, several recommendations have been made by the AFC, other political parties, and civil society, regarding the adoption of biometrics and electronic voting to enhance electoral integrity, adding that it was essential for the Chairperson to comment on these recommendations. The AFC continued to press home the point that a transparent dialogue on the adoption of new technologies is necessary to rebuild trust in the electoral process, while urging GECOM not to remain silent or rely on occasional press releases. “The nation deserves a clear and detailed plan of action. We urge the Chairperson to address these concerns openly and to implement measures that will ensure a fair, transparent, and credible electoral process in the upcoming 2025 elections.”
In its response, GECOM said that it was necessary for the Commission to remind all political stakeholders and by extension the general public that the chair, Justice of Appeal (Ret’d) Claudette Singh has repeatedly emphasized that the Commission’s operations are guided by the laws of Guyana. It said that the GECOM Chair has emphasized that GECOM cannot and will not act outside of the extant statutory provisions pertaining to the conduct of National Registration, Local Government Elections and General and Regional Elections. More specifically, it must be emphasized that the introduction of biometrics requires legislative changes and, until such is enabled, GECOM cannot proceed with implementing such a feature, the response said.
Insofar as the integrity of the electoral processes is concerned, GECOM asserted that there are in existence safeguards aimed at preventing multiple voting and other forms of skulduggery on Election Day. It said that the safeguards include, but are not limited to, (i) the presence of political party agents at each polling station, (ii) accurate identification of the voter, (iii) the use of indelible ink, (iv) the presence of security personnel from the Guyana Police Force, (v) the conduct of an intensive voter education campaign, (vi) adequate training of Election Day staff for efficient conduct of the polls, (vii) counting of ballots at the place of poll in the presence of authorized representatives of the contesting parties, and (viii) the presence of local and international observers throughout the voting and counting processes.
Both the AFC and GECOM said a mouthful but neither addressed the nub of the problems on March 2nd 2020: the corruption of the entire election process by a handful of officials in the heart of the secretariat of the elections commission. The five-month impasse that delayed the transition in governments had nothing at all to do with a bloated list of voters or malpractices at polling stations. It was all about a rearguard effort hatched at the Kingston offices of GECOM and unleashed at the Ashmins Building where the District Four Returning Officer was accommodated.
It encompassed the breach of the Representation of the People Act by the use of a spreadsheet instead of Statements of Poll (SOPs), contempt of a court order that SOPs be used, the vulgarity of a bedsheet being used to project numbers on it, efforts to destabilise the recount process and abuse-of-court motions at various tiers of the judicial system.
That both the AFC and GECOM were silent on these obscenities in their statements may be a reflection of their own culpabilities in 2020. Despite the fact that it suffered as a result of the five-month delay in results in 2020, the ruling PPP/C appears unperturbed that the conditions that led to the fiasco still prevail. It may feel that it has greater control of the process having managed to engineer some of its preferred choices into key positions at GECOM. That is, however, of no comfort to the ordinary voter who wants to be convinced that the secretariat and the people at the Kingston HQ and the District Four office will comport themselves with honesty and integrity.
It is also worthy of note that Justice of Appeal (retired) Singh, Chair of the Commission who “presided” over the debacle in March 2020 remains in place. At the height of the clear attempts to falsify the election results the Chair sought refuge in an office behind locked doors to cogitate on the many conundrums and enigmas that were whirling around her. That is not the type of Chair the country or its people need. She needed to have intervened decisively to root out the attempts to overturn the results. It is worthwhile pointing out that the PPP/C-nominated commissioners also failed to prevent the corruption of the process.
In the end, it was the international community that came to the rescue of Guyana’s elections – through the recount of votes and other measures – and enabled the orderly transition in governments. The elections bell has clearly been rung but the public cannot be convinced that the GECOM Secretariat has been immunized from malign behaviour.
Finally, it is worth repeating that the vast majority of the hundreds of polling day workers on March 2nd 2020 worked industriously and heroically to enable voters to cast their ballots, for these to be counted, results posted up outside polling stations and the relevant documents transmitted to the district returning officers. That system functioned marvellously and does not require biometrics or cameras to create grounds for upheaval.
With expanded means of communications with the hinterland, what GECOM should be focused on is a declaration of results as early as possible after the close of polls.
