Dear Editor,
Leading up to the May 5, 2015, regional and national elections in Guyana, several PPP/C supporters advanced a theory that America was likely to interfere with the 2015 elections. They readily pointed to the controversial “Leadership and Democracy” project initiated by the US Embassy during the 2011-2014 period as laying a foundation for this manoeuvre. The PPP/C government had serious reservations about that project and there was uneasiness in the relations between the US and Guyana.
Other factors included: (i) America’s past machinations in toppling the PPP governments of 1953 and in 1964 and the clandestine operations of the CIA (1962-1963) to destabilize the PPP government; (ii) the role of America’s powerful Trade Union AFL-CIO in funding the Guyana Trade Union (TUC) during the 80-day strike; (iii) America’s favoured treatment of Mr. Forbes Burnham when the 303 Committee granted him $(US)5,000 a month for 2 years to strengthen the PNC party; (iv) the US International Narcotic Control Strategy Report which depicted Guyana “as one of the most corrupt countries in the world;” and (v) President Jimmy Carter characterized President Donald Ramotar’s PPP/C administration as one of “contentious governance” and indicated that Mr. Ramotar had “pushed the country into a crisis of governance.”
Given these negative factors that were incongruent with democratic governance, the US Charge d’Affaires, Mr. Bryan Hunt seized the opportunity to ensure that GECOM declare, without further delay, the APNU+AFC coalition as winner of the 2015 polls. Mr. Hunt also advised the PPP/C to file election petition(s) for electoral irregularities. It would be recalled that the PPP/C lost region 8 by just 1 vote but was denied a recount. The PPP/C supporters have asked if we could identify any other area of possible US interference. While conducting research into migration, I came across an intriguing phenomenon. Immediately preceding the 2015 elections, the US Embassy increased visitor visas by 74.35% or from 17,284 in 2014 to 30,121 in 2015. In 2016, the visas allocation increased by 70.3% over the 2015 figure. In 2017, the number of visitor visas plummeted to 25,338 (or –50.6%). In 2018 the visas issued shrunk by 500% and almost equaled the volume of immigrant visas.
The theory advanced was that (i) the US granted those visas so that voters could travel to the US before elections day when they would therefore be unable to vote; and (ii) this perceived lower turnout rate would work to the advantage of the APNU+AFC coalition. Just think about it! “If Guyanese are given a choice between voting and a US visa, which one would they choose?” For Indo-Guyanese and Afro-Guyanese, voter preference in 2015 was heavily influenced by race. To determine any correlation therefore depended on the availability of visa data on a race basis. Since we don’t have access to such ethnic based data, no causal relation could be established. The theory of granting an historic level of visas during 2015-2016 is tantalizing, but the requisite data (on a race basis) needed for support/validation of the theory are lacking. This does not necessarily mean however that we should readily dismiss this theory; instead, there should be further research into this phenomenon. This sudden decision for the US to relax its strict visitor visas requirements defy logic. At the same time, the level of immigrant visas remained stable at an average of 4,551 annually during 2013 to 2018.
Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh
