If the old political hands feel that we have suddenly entered an unfamiliar new world, they might have some justification. On the one hand there is the PPP which has always represented itself as the beacon of democracy trying to evade a secret ballot, of all things, to choose a presidential candidate, and on the other there is the PNC whose name had become synonymous with electoral chicanery holding ‘town hall’ meetings ostensibly as part of the process to identify its party’s candidate. In addition, these two old warhorse parties which once upon a time were clamped up tighter than Fort Knox, have now opened up the vaults revealing the full extent of the factionalism and internal dissension within. Things are just not like they used to be.
Where the PPP is concerned, the argument about the secret ballot must seem mystifying to some members, given that – as Mr Ralph Ramkarran explained in a letter to this newspaper – it has always been the practice for the party to hold a secret ballot when elections are contested, and given too – as Mr Navin Chandarpal argued in another letter – that in a democratic context the secret ballot is a right, not a privilege. Just why, one wonders, should some in the PPP be so skittish about what has been standard practice for polls in most western nations since the nineteenth century.
It was President Jagdeo who revealed the depth of his reluctance to countenance a secret ballot when two weeks ago he told the media, “…there is a danger we have always been worried [about] that people could promise others things to get them to vote for them and this is the danger of secret balloting.” He went on to say: “If one person becomes unethical and say[s] when I win you would become a minister in the new government, then it starts leading to things that we don’t tolerate in the PPP.” It is strange that the President should have picked on an argument which could be better employed to plead the opposite case. If the reward as suggested by the President were a ministerial posting, then it wouldn’t matter too much what the form of voting was, since it could be presumed that even if it was secret, the voter would need the candidate to win before the promise could be given effect. If, on the other hand, the ‘bribe’ was something material, then in a confidential ballot the ‘briber’ could never be sure that the voter had indeed delivered as agreed, whereas in a system of acclamation, everything would be out in the open.
The main argument against a show of hands or public ballot has always been the opportunity it affords for intimidation, and it is for this reason it is nowadays rejected in democracies. The irony is that in modern times it was the Chartists in England, representing the interests of the working class, who among their proposals for parliamentary reform were the first to ask for the secret ballot. The British government which in the first half of the nineteenth century still represented largely the landed classes, did not respond to the Chartist demands; it was workers (including miners) in some parts of Australia who were influenced by their ideas, and introduced the first modern secret ballot in 1856. The British eventually came around to the idea too, although it took them until 1872. The various states of the US followed suit starting in 1888.
General Secretary of the PPP, Mr Donald Ramotar is in sync with his President. When asked earlier this month whether an open vote would not be an inhibiting factor for members of the PPP Central Committee, he responded: “Why should it inhibit anything? We have had a tradition of all kinds of voting in the party. Our party is not a party where people should feel inhibited or afraid of nobody. What kind of party would we have if people are afraid to express their opinions and views in the party? Then we won’t have a properly functioning organization at all…” This is, of course, a red herring. A secret ballot does not prevent people from expressing their views openly and without inhibition; it just allows them to keep their vote confidential.
The President had a red herring of his own: “Now some people, I think they do the mathematics and they see that the odds may not be in their favour so they are arguing for a new process…” It is a little puzzling how “a new process” could affect the “mathematics” of a vote except in a way which would refute the President’s point. In a show of hands influence could be brought to bear which would not operate if the ballot were confidential.
If, as Mr Ramotar claims, nobody will be afraid to vote their inclination in an acclamation process, then there is no reason to resist the calls for a secret ballot, since the outcome would be the same in both cases. In a party whose traditional reputation hinges on the concept of free and fair elections at the national level, one would expect there would be an anxiety not just to follow democratic procedures in internal elections, but to be seen to follow democratic procedures.
In the meantime, as mentioned above, the PNC’s candidates have been touring the country speaking to the party’s constituents in what are called ‘town-hall’ meetings in the US. This innovation (for this country) has been met with general approbation by everyone; however, a query hovers over it in relation to the larger framework in which it is occurring, namely, the party’s commitment to democratic procedures at the level of the ballot and its associated protocols. Last month, allegations were made in a letter sent by a PNCR New York group about a deviation from the systems and procedures approved by the Central Executive Committee for the identification of presidential candidates. We reported on December 8 last year that the General Secretary of the party had not replied to the letter.
Even without that, a dark cloud hangs over the previous two party congresses where electoral irregularities had been alleged. As such, therefore, it would definitely be premature to characterise the candidates’ tours currently under way – although admirable in themselves – as democratic progress for the PNC; we are yet to discover if they are only window dressing and if the party has truly reformed. That, however, will only become evident later at the voting stage or when the preliminaries for that stage begin. One might have thought that given its history at the national level, the PNC would have gone out of its way to ensure beyond all shadow of a doubt that its internal democratic operations were above reproach, since any suspicion of contamination would doom it, but to date the party hierarchy has not given the impression that this concern is foremost in their minds.
No matter who the parties have decided should actually have the right to vote for their presidential candidate – and opinions are not unanimous on that topic in either the PPP or the PNCR – at least the public should be assured that the electoral procedures involved are beyond censure.
