Dear Editor,
GECOM Chairman, Dr. Steve Surujbally’s declaration that GECOM cannot and must not be held responsible for the delay of Local Government Elections, (“Delay in Local Government polls not financially feasible,” SN, March 25), may not not entirely true if GECOM, as an independent entity charged with responsibility for preparing and staging elections in accordance with its constitutional mandate, could have taken legal steps during Dr. Surujbally’s tenure to have the government and all registered political parties expedite Local Government legislative reforms. Instead, it sat and waited on government and the parties, so how can it not be held responsible for at least failing to take legal action?
In the context of separation of powers, I believe all independent government institutions should resort to the court if or when the executive branch is not doing its part in helping these institutions to do their job effectively and on schedule, whether through running political interference or underfunding. More than that, when I read the entire news account that cited Dr. Surujbally on several points pertinent to the staging of LG Elections, there is nothing that he said that made him or his organization come across as credible or even relevant to the entire electoral process and the people’s constitutional rights to scheduled LG Elections. No, it is not a personal attack, but a judicious observation of what GECOM has devolved into during the PPP’s time in power: an ineffective entity that has not delivered on its responsibility to the people of Guyana, but is capable of furnishing seemingly intelligent excuses and reasons for its failure and possible consequences.
Here is an unpalatable fact. Dr. Surujbally, according to media reports, said recently GECOM was ready for LG Elections and that the LG Minister was the one to set the date. If GECOM is ready for LG Elections, how is it that, according to the SN story sourced for this letter, Dr. Surujbally is now saying that ‘GECOM cannot be unmindful of the concerns expressed by the parliamentary opposition parties as well as the indication that government is open to considering the demands for closure on the outstanding legislation reforms prior to the local elections’?
Did GECOM jump the gun and say it was ready for LG Elections, probably because the government said it was, without first consulting with the political opposition to know if they were ready? After all, GECOM is made up of representatives from the parties, and so this announcement that it was ready only to now say it is mindful of the concerns expressed by the political opposition before LG Elections can be staged, truly exposes disconcerting dissonance within the organization.
And in a letter published last week, I asked the GECOM Chairman to furnish the people with a clause from the Local Government Act that said the LG Minister is the person who is responsible for setting the date for elections, because it was the LG Minister, by way of a letter, who explained that an amendment of the LG Act removed responsibility for conducting elections from the Minister to GECOM. Again, barring the citing of a clause in the LG Act that still has the Minister being involved in the conduct of elections by setting a date, I don’t think it is acceptable for the GECOM Chairman to simply say that ‘the LG Minister was the one to set the date’.
Leaving the date setting to the Minister could be a political disaster for GECOM, because the Minister can then delay the date until such a time the ruling party and its government are satisfied they are capable of pulling off a sweep. Further, if the government could have failed to ensure LG Elections were held for 16 years, what is there to stop it from failing to do so for another five years?
It also does not help the credibility of both the government and GECOM that the General Secretary of the ruling party could come out and say that LG Elections could have been held using the old system while work was being done on legislative reforms. It is one of the few times I can say I resonate with the PPP General Secretary; nevertheless, his view here is a day late and a dollar short, because he was in a position for some time now when this kind of opinion could have been seriously considered. As a matter of national interest, did he ever bring it up with President Bharrat Jagdeo or leaders of the political opposition?
If it is true that the government gave Dr. Surujbally an indication it is open to considering the demands for closure on the outstanding legislation reforms prior to the local elections, then Dr. Surujbally has every right to be concerned about the financial feasibility of this move or the validity of the Register of Voters or the availability of personnel trained for this specific exercise, because they are temporary workers. After all, he and GECOM waited for a long time for this exercise to be staged and they were forced to work with a limited budget and severe personnel constraints.
But no where in the news story did he ever express concern about the rights of the voters being infringed on because of the political bungling of this exercise by the government, on whose shoulder falls or rests the duty for ensuring GECOM is fully funded and completely furnished to do its job independently, efficiently and effectively. And this is what makes all his seemingly intelligent excuses and reasons for GECOM’s failure and possible consequences so unpalatable, and he and GECOM come across as less than credible.
For a country with between 250,000 to 400,000 eligible voters, the logistical problems associated with staging LG Elections cannot be linked to these underwhelming numbers, but the absolutely uncaring politics that now permeate the atmosphere in Guyana.
And with government supposedly considering the political opposition’s request for legislative reforms to be passed/accepted before the staging of LG Elections, voters likely will want to know if the LG Election date will be pushed back and how much longer they have to wait.
Hopefully, there is no bull-rushing of the reforms in the name of expedition without the independent media and civil society stakeholders being given an opportunity to scrutinize and comment on them.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin,
Queens, New York
