There has been little public debate about the standards for assessing the method chosen for house-to-house registration and almost no discussion about the full costs of this exercise. At the same time, there has been little deliberation about President Jagdeo’s suggestion for a “multi-purpose” identification card.
No matter; the public has now been informed about arrangements for visits to their homes by registration officers that signal commencement of preparations for the new National Register of Registrants. One key test for success will be the extent to which home visits are convenient for citizens who are employed; others who work in outlying areas; and still others who are parents of children attending school and taking private lessons.
During house visits persons will be asked to show documents that confirm their age. GECOM has announced that these documents must include one or more of the following: an original birth certificate; an original marriage certificate; an original deed poll as well as original birth certificate or a valid passport in the case of a name change by deed poll; or an original naturalisation certificate. Once satisfied that documents are in order, registration officers will ask questions of each applicant for registration, legibly insert the answers into a form, take a photograph and obtain all ten fingerprints of each applicant. The completed form would then be signed by the applicant and submitted by the registration officer to GECOM headquarters for processing and eventual delivery of a new national identification card to each successful applicant.
The challenge
The house-to-house registration exercise was preceded by an important agreement between the government, parliamentary political parties and GECOM. This agreement was signed on June 14, 2007 and witnessed by the key external donors. Since then, concerns have been raised about the availability of adequate numbers of skilled personnel to collect information; convenient times for family members; possibilities for mischief; the likelihood of multiple registration; the transparency of the process and the role of scrutineers representing political parties.
While full details about the exact costs of this exercise are still to be made public, its scope and scale are awesome. It is estimated that there are about 600,000 citizens of Guyana above the age of 14 years. This would mean that say, a minimum of 3,000 literate, skilled and competent registration officers must be recruited and trained. They would need to visit at least 120,000 homes during the six-month period between January and July 2008. These officers must be trained so that all are capable of legibly transcribing information onto some 600,000 application forms. They must all be competent to take 600,000 photographs and obtain 6,000,000 fingerprints in a professional way that ensures that the quality of data and information they have collected can be correctly encoded in a database capable of withstanding scrutiny by all political parties, special-interest groups, civil society organisations and, of course, citizens themselves.
Another way
In general, countries choose one of two systems to carry out registration exercises. First, the state-initiated system. This method is used by only a few countries, Guyana included, where registration officers visit the homes of all citizens. Second, the self-initiated system. Most countries use this method where the citizen takes the initiative to visit a registration centre so that he or she can be enumerated.
In Guyana’s case, consideration could have been given to a simpler and less costly method in which responsibility for registration is shared by the state and the citizens. GECOM could have set up registration centres in every community within walking distance of every citizen’s home, just as polling places are established for elections. Instead of six months, the registration period could be limited to say, six weeks, with citizens deciding the most convenient time to visit centres that would be open only on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. Mobile centres could be set up to register citizens who live in hinterland communities. More specifically, this method could include,
* consideration of a small financial incentive to encourage citizens to register as well as publicising the consequences of attempting to register more than once;
* establishing say, 1,000 registration centres in all communities with each centre located within walking distance of no more than, say, 600 citizens;
* providing each centre with trained and competent technical staff, electrical power, security and sanitation facilities for citizens, officials and scrutineers;
* providing each centre with a laptop computer, kit and software that enable entry of basic information, photographs and machine-readable fingerprints;
* establishing an adequate number of mobile centres to enable visits to hinterland communities in difficult geographic locations; and,
* arranging for the eventual distribution of ID cards through visits by citizens to the same centre originally assigned for undertaking registration.
Multi-purpose ID cards and civil registers
President Jagdeo’s suggestion of a “multiple-purpose” ID card raises an important related issue and it might be helpful to look at some experiences of countries which have instituted such a card. Better yet, it might even be more useful to examine some possible consequences for a citizen of such a country who did not possess a multi purpose card. That citizen might be:
* unable to work in either the formal or informal economy;
* unable to collect pension, disability or other payments provided by the state;
* unable to cash cheques at banks, insurance companies or other financial institutions;
* unable to receive a driver’s licence or other authorization provided by the state;
* unable to record the birth of a child or the death of a relative;
* unable to register in an educational institution or enrol a child in school;
* unable to register either a marriage or a divorce;
* unable to lease, purchase or sell property because of the absence of tax clearance; and,
* unable to exercise the right to vote in local or national elections.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the President’s suggestion raises the question as to whether the time is right for Guyana to establish a civil register. Many governments have opted to establish civil registers in order to better manage the economy, administer and deliver social and other services and promote development. The introduction of a civil register is usually accompanied by the issuance of a multi-purpose ID card that contains among other information a person’s legal name, date of birth, gender, address, signature, card number, card expiration date, health insurance number and other basic information.
On the one hand, the benefits of a civil register include more efficient ways of maintaining population data; evaluating the impact of government services; keeping tax records and using the same basic data to establish a list of voters at elections from time to time. On the other hand, citizens in many countries raise questions about their government having access to personal details and possible misuse of this information. Just a few days ago the new Australian Labour government threw out the “access card,” a proposal by the previous government that would have required citizens to present a multi-purpose ID card any time they dealt with certain government departments.
Notwithstanding these reservations, should a decision be taken to implement the President’s suggestion, several government agencies would be confronted with a challenge that has three basic objectives. First, to use technology to establish databases containing personal information about citizens. Second, to establish protocols and procedures that guarantee the confidentiality of such informat
ion. And third, to ensure that information about citizens is used solely for purposes of security and efficient delivery of services.
It is well known in Guyana that several government agencies such as the Revenue Authority and the National Insurance Scheme are currently compiling data bases of information about citizens so that a range of social and other services might be more efficiently delivered to citizens. The issue then is whether GECOM’s house-to-house registration exercise should be an important contribution to the work of establishing a civil register for Guyana.
If a decision is taken to establish such a national civil register, it stands to reason that implementation of GECOM’s house-to-house registration exercise should be a part of this process and await a collaborative agreement between all government agencies currently establishing data-bases of citizens. Such an agreement should put in place an institutional and organisational infrastructure to design an integrated approach for gathering data and maintaining the register. Such collaboration could include a pilot exercise in representative localities so that costs could be ascertained and methodologies tested. GECOM, as the agency mandated to establish and maintain a permanent register of all citizens above the age of 14 years is obviously the agency that should take the lead in such a national effort.
A comprehensive, well thought-out approach to the important task of registration is urgently needed. It should be undertaken in the context of President Jagdeo’s suggestion for a multi-purpose ID card since this logically requires a detailed examination of the usefulness of a national civil register for Guyana.
