Dear Editor,
The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) takes this opportunity to respond to the editorial titled ‘National ID Cards,’ which was published in the Guyana Times of Wednesday, April 1, 2009.
But before we so do, it is important to note that this convoluted and disjointed editorial was put together in such a piecemeal manner, that it clearly depicts the author’s non-acquaintance with the mandates of GECOM pertaining to house-to-house registration, continuous registration, production and distribution of national identification cards, and the management of elections. One cannot help but contemplate whether this disorganized piece of writing was done to create/engineer doubt relative to the work of the Commission, as a forerunner to much more disruptive commentaries to come later as we prepare for upcoming local government elections.
The purpose of this response is to (i) put in perspective the misguided impressions proffered by the author (ii) dispel any further misconception of GECOM’s responsibilities, and (iii) clarify any misunderstanding about the modus operandi of the Commission and its Secretariat in carrying out those responsibilities.
On one hand the editorial seems to be castigating GECOM for not as yet having produced and distributed new national ID cards for persons registered during the 2008 house-to-house registration exercise, and querying where the money for this undertaking will come from. On the other hand, there is argument for movement towards the production of some form of multiple-usage ID card without any consideration being given to the source of the funds which would have been required for this, bearing in mind that this option could cost more.
In view of the need to give transparency to GECOM’s positions regarding the concerns raised in the editorial, we invite the author and all other stakeholders to note the following:-
GECOM did not conduct the 2008 house-to-house registration exercise specifically for the production and issuance of new ID cards. Nor did GECOM take a unilateral decision to conduct house-to-house registration. The imperative to conduct the 2008 house-to-house registration was born out of (i) political concerns that the national Register of Registrants (NRR) which was used for the preparation of the voters’ list for the 2006 elections was contaminated, and (ii) the need for the creation of an indisputable National Register of Registrants Database (NRRDB) which could be used as the basis for the preparation of electoral lists that would be commonly acceptable by all stakeholders as being unblemished, and which would form the base for the conduct of all future continuous registration exercises.
With these in mind, the Government of Guyana and the parliamentary political parties agreed on June 14, 2007, to the preparation of a new NRRDB by house-to-house registration. GECOM was authorized to carry out this mandate.
It is the policy objective of GECOM that the new NRRDB will be perpetually updated and purified through future cycles of continuous registration and their respective concomitant claims and objections exercises.
This would inevitably lead to the preparation of future electoral lists that would be commonly acceptable by and among all political parties and other stakeholders.
The production and distribution of new national identification cards is an integral part of the national registration process as delineated in the National Registration Act, Chapter 19:08 with its numerous legislative amendments. In fact, all new registrants are legally entitled to be issued new national identification cards. In the case of the new NRRDB, which is being created from the 2008 house-to-house registration exercise, all of the registrants are deemed to be new, since this is an entirely new register of registrants. This new database has no relationship with the previous one, and therefore cannot be classified as being contaminated.
Consequent upon the capture, editing and encoding of registrants’ data, the production and distribution of new national identification cards is not automatic. ID cards will be produced only for those registrants who have been indisputably authenticated.
Towards this end, and upon the conclusion of the 2008 house-to-house registration exercise, GECOM moved towards the conduct of a fingerprint cross matching exercise to determine whether multiple registrations exist among the new registration records.
The report on this exercise was only recently received and is currently being acted upon by the Commission and its Secretariat in the finalization of the new NRRDB. Hence, it must be obvious that GECOM, even now, dare not produce and distribute national ID cards, simply because the NRRDB has not as yet been finalized.
Costly as it is, the government, in agreeing to the conduct of house-to-house registration, would have considered that it would have to pay for such an exercise given that GECOM is a budget agency.
Further, it is pellucidly clear from the June 14, 2007, agreement that the key stakeholders were integrally involved in the decision to conduct house-to-house registration.
The introduction of a multipurpose ID card instead of having one “that is restricted to only a few standard transactions” is not for GECOM to determine. This is totally outside of the Commission’s legal mandate. However, it is essential to point out that GECOM was involved in discussions on this matter which had been mooted even before the June 14, 2007 agreement. Notwithstanding this however, the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) had already commenced production of a newly designed NIS card. The Guyana Revenue Authority had made it clear that the laws governing its operations do not permit this agency to share people’s data with other agencies. Similar laws prevent GECOM from sharing registrants’ data.
As is noted above, GECOM will be registering eligible persons during future cycles of continuous registration. Hence, the issue of persons who became eligible for registration after the 2008 house-to-house registration exercise being disadvantaged does not arise.
The editorial takes the unsubstantiated position that “voter registration and national ID cards have created much distrust and discord among Political Parties and other stakeholders.” We will not speculate on what specifically the author is trying to say, especially since his/her ‘concern’ might be a historical one.
However, if this ‘concern’ pertains to the registration database (and the ID cards produced therefrom) which was used for the production of the Official List of Electors for the 2006 elections, then it must be seen in the context of being a great motivator relative to the government and the parliamentary political parties agreeing to the conduct of the 2008 house-to-house registration exercise in order to eliminate the elements of distrust and discord.
GECOM, as the duly constituted body with the authority to conduct national registration and manage elections, is very conscious of its “role” and is perpetually focused on developing workable and long term measures that would not be compromised or cause any discord among any of its stakeholders, not lastly the political parties. This has been evidently demonstrated through the Commission’s successful lobby for the National Registration Act, Chapter 19:08 to be amended to clear the way for the introduction of continuous registration pursuant to the frequent updating and accuracy of the NRRBD, and the voters’ lists to be produced therefrom. Consequently, continuous registration was introduced in Guyana since 2005.
It must be emphasized that it was this Commission, with its existing structure, which rose above political partisanship, and with single-minded dedication and fixity of purpose voted unanimously on issues related to the improvement of the functionality and long term sustainability of the GECOM and its Secretariat. This was done on occasions too numerous to mention, and after intense deliberations − some more time consuming than others. Bearing all of the above in mind, it must also be emphasized that the Commission and its Secretariat can competently find technical solutions to technical problems. The solving of political/governmental issues is not part of the Commission’s scope of work and mandate.
In conclusion, we must repeat, as we have so often done in the past, that anyone who is ill informed, misinformed or non-knowledgeable about the operations of GECOM need only consult with us before placing absurd and unsubstantiated comments in the public domain. Failure to so do would only serve to (i) sow discord within the electorate, and (ii) undermine and erode the stakeholder confidence which currently resides in the Commission.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Persaud
Public Relations Officer
GECOM
