Delivering its final verdict on the November 28 general elections, the OAS has confirmed its original finding of a mostly smooth process and has recommended reforms to the electoral system but there was nothing in the report that backed up recent claims by President Donald Ramotar that the APNU and the AFC had manipulated the poll results.
Ramotar’s claims two weeks ago – which some say were tantamount to saying that the elections were rigged – have been condemned by the opposition parties. He suggested that the ruling party had been cheated of about four or five percent of the votes.
The OAS which mounted a 25-member Electoral Observer Mission (EOM) headed by Jamaican professor Gordon Shirley recommended a series of reforms to the country’s electoral framework and for more equitable access to the media – a sore problem for opposition parties – and to campaign financing. Its Permanent Council heard a verbal presentation in Washington yesterday by Professor Shirley.
Key among the recommendations were mechanisms to ensure more even access to media and political financing.
The report recommended:
* “The further institutionalization of GECOM’s Media Monitoring Unit, including the incorporation of mechanisms that ensure its impartial composition and legal mechanisms that include oversight and enforcement capabilities.
* “The development of mechanisms to ensure the independence of members of the forthcoming Board of Authority contemplated in the recently passed Broadcasting Act. The OAS electoral observation mission recommends that regulations made pursuant to the Act should limit the discretion of the Board and should set out in detail both the conditions governing licenses and clarifications of the general terms used in the Act.” This issue has been raised by opposition parties which are concerned that the government will seek to exercise full control over the broadcast authority and use it for political purposes.
* “A legal review of the campaign financing framework. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of a requirement for disclosure of campaign expenditures prior to the elections, to the establishment of criteria for private and foreign contributions, and to instituting public campaign financing.
* “A review of options for proportional party access to paid and free advertising time without the existing requirement by state channels for a 48 hour prior submission for review”.
In terms of electoral reform, the OAS mission also proposed changes to allow voters direct access to their representatives. It has been proposed by some political parties that a list of candidates in order of priority be presented to the voters so they would have an idea as to who they would be voting into Parliament. The OAS also mooted reforms to the Guyana Elections Commission which is also something that opposition parties have been pressing for.
The OAS mission posited that the various political stakeholders review the existing electoral legal framework in the following areas:
1. “Given that the Guyanese electoral system requires voters to mark a ballot for the party, not a named candidate, the mission recommends revisiting the possibility of allowing direct representation to provide greater choice for voters and direct access to political representatives.
2. “A review of the composition of the Electoral Commission to potentially incorporate technical criteria and to establish mechanisms that guarantee plurality. These recommendations are “designed to enhance independence and to reduce the perception of politicization of the electoral process.
3. “The level of legal detail and discretion afforded the Commission regarding electoral procedures. The OAS mission recommends the consideration of safeguards and detailed regulations to ensure full independence and guarantee participation by all citizens.
4. “Guaranteed availability and disbursement of the approved allotment of resources for the electoral process to GECOM on a regular, scheduled basis during electoral years.
5. “As recommended by the 2006 OAS electoral observation mission, constitutionally mandated local elections should be held soon to increase the inclusivity of the political system.”
Several other recommendations stemming from its observer mission here were made. These included:
3. Determination of and adherence to timely and standardized procedures for the electoral process.
The OAS mission recommends that GECOM incorporate stringent deadlines for the electoral calendar and for changes in procedures prior to election day.
4. Definition of the tabulation process and ensuring the chain of custody for electoral results.
The OAS EOM recommends a complete review of the procedures for the transmission and tabulation of results and for the declaration of both preliminary and final results. The mission also recommends that additional mechanisms be implemented to secure electoral materials at all times.
5. Strengthening the promotion of gender balanced participation throughout the electoral process.
Given that party leaders have complete discretion in deciding which candidates from the list actually gain seats in the assembly, the OAS electoral observation mission recommends further mechanisms to ensure the continued political participation of women, both within political party structures, by supporting training programs for female candidates, and throughout the GECOM hierarchy.
The full text of the verbal presentation follows:
Electoral Observation Mission – Guyana General and Regional Elections of November 28, 2011
Verbal Report to the OAS Permanent Council
On November 28, 2011, Guyana’s more than 475,000 registered voters took to the polls for the General and Regional Elections. On the invitation of the Government of Guyana, the OAS on this occasion fielded an Electoral Observation Mission of 25 observers in 9 of the country’s 10 administrative regions, with visits to over 13% of the polling stations.
Results:
The results of the General Elections of 2011 gave the Presidency to Mr. Donald Ramotar from the People’s Progressive Party / Civic with 48.6% of the total valid votes. In the National Assembly, the PPP/C obtained a total of 32 of the 65 seats, and the combined opposition parties won the majority of seats, resulting in a minority government for the first time in Guyanese history. For the opposition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) received 26 seats, and the Alliance for Change (AFC) 7 seats.
Observations:
* Pre-electoral period
The OAS mission noted the significant efforts made by the Guyanese Electoral Commission (GECOM) since 2006 to improve procedures and execute an overall inclusive and clean electoral process on the day of the election. In particular, the mission commends the implementation of the 2008 house-to-house verification and its resulting enhancement of the credibility of the voter’s list, as well as the high level of training and dedication exhibited by GECOM staff in the polling centers.
In respect of campaign financing, Guyana’s legal framework includes spending limits and requires public reporting of expenses within 35 days of the election. These are positive steps toward creating accountability for party spending. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to note that post-electoral reporting of expenditure reduces the ability for oversight and prevents citizens from making a fully informed choice at the polls. Guyana also lacks regulations for campaign contributions, thereby omitting public financing mechanisms or prohibitions against anonymous or foreign contributions. In effect, this means party incomes are based on private donations, and the system opens the door to the use of state resources for electoral purposes and to unequal conditions for electoral competition.
A positive aspect of the campaign period was GECOM’s efforts that resulted in the adoption of Codes of Conduct for both political parties and media to help promote fair play. Moreover, the reopening of GECOM’s Media Monitoring Unit to measure adherence to these commitments provided a critical mechanism for transparency. Nonetheless, these codes of conduct lack any enforcement mechanisms.
Regarding the balance of access to media and campaign financing for political contenders, the campaign was characterized by a perception of limited differentiation between the state and the governing party. As expressed by a wide range of stakeholders, citizens are often confused over the difference between Government Information Agency material broadcast on the state TV channel and other content.
In this regard, it is important to note that the only existing radio station in Guyana and the only television station with national reach both belong to the state. In addition, the OAS mission notes that private CNS Channel 6’s broadcasting license was suspended for nine days within 60 days of the election. These issues raise the need to further strengthen the guarantees for competitive elections and voter access to information needed to make an informed choice when casting their ballots.
According to GECOM’s Media Monitoring Unit reports for October and November, of the given sample of news, talk shows, commentaries and general programming on state-owned radio and TV, 81% of the political party coverage that qualified as positive or neutral referred to the governing party. In addition, significant disparities were observed by OAS observers throughout the country regarding the resources available for campaign offices, events, and advertising. According to the Media Monitoring Unit reports, between October and November, 83% of TV and radio electoral advertising promoted the PPP/C while 17% promoted the opposition parties.
* Election day procedures
On election day, the efforts to prepare for the polls by both GECOM’s staff and the other key stakeholders, including local observers, security forces and party agents were in evidence.
Regarding gender participation, Guyana is the only country in the Caribbean with a gender quota for female candidacies in effect. The observed polling stations were comprised of more than 75% female poll workers. Nonetheless, only one of the four major political parties fielded a woman at the top of its ticket, and there is no female participation at the Commissioner level in GECOM.
While the voting process was generally smooth, the OAS observed several late changes to the process:
1. The polling stations that differed from the November 8th published Official List of Polling Stations and the list provided to the OAS dated November 25th reached a national average of 6%.
2. The Returning Officer for Region 4, the most populous region in the country, was replaced within a week of the polls;
3. While GECOM’s decision to not to issue certificates of work to party agents was in accordance with law, their issuance in past elections created a reasonable expectation that they would be provided for the current process. The notice of the change two days prior to the election may have created impediments for some party agents to both fulfill their oversight duties and cast their vote.
On election day, the OAS electoral observation mission observed cases of voters being unable to find their names on the lists at the polling centers, long lines, and some voter confusion regarding where to cast their vote, particularly in Region 4.
Throughout the day, the OAS observers did not witness any incidents of voter intimidation, interruptions of the voting process, or restrictions of the right to a secret vote. Poll workers carried out the counting of the ballots according to legal procedures, no statements of poll were challenged, and agents from both governing and opposition parties were present during the counting at all observed stations.
* Tabulation and processing of results
The vote counting and transmission process lasted for three days before the official declaration of results. It is important to note that, while the OAS observation mission maintained a 24-hour presence in the tabulation center up to the time of the publicly scheduled declaration of results, the level of transparency and access to information was limited for the OAS observers.
Nevertheless, several incidents which demonstrated the lack of application of uniform procedures were observed, including:
1. The OAS teams stationed at the tabulation center in Georgetown observed at least two envelopes containing statements of poll being delivered by an unaccredited and unescorted individual.
2. On at least two occasions, statements of poll bypassed the system whereby the Commissioners examined them and were instead delivered directly to the manual tabulation process.
3. On November 29th, for about half an hour the reception procedure was reversed by the GECOM Chairman to institute the direct delivery of statements of poll to the manual tabulation process, prior to their verification by Commissioners.
4. Prior to the declaration of results, the IT department was unable to finish processing all of the statements of poll, and 307 were not in the digital tabulation center’s system half an hour before the originally scheduled declaration of results. While the declaration of results is legally based on the information provided to the Chief Electoral Officer by the Returning Officers, corroborating the manual tally with that of the IT department prior to the declaration of results could have helped lend credibility to the process.
The OAS mission considers it unfortunate that, following a generally well administered election up to and including polling day, this lack of uniform procedures and slow dissemination of results lent credence to concerns regarding the handling of the statements of poll and the final results.
Two weeks after the election, GECOM’s Commissioner reported to the OAS Mission that unrest relating to the electoral results continued to target the institution’s headquarters in the form of street demonstrations that could threaten peace and stability. In light of this prolonged discontent and public targeting of the electoral authority, the mission considers it essential that significant actions are carried out by GECOM prior to future elections to instill greater credibility of its actions.
Recommendations:
1. Employment of mechanisms to guarantee more equitable access to media and political financing.
In order to ensure equal opportunity and that voters can make an informed choice, the OAS electoral observation mission recommends:
* The further institutionalization of GECOM’s Media Monitoring Unit, including the incorporation of mechanisms that ensure its impartial composition and legal mechanisms that include oversight and enforcement capabilities.
* The development of mechanisms to ensure the independence of members of the forthcoming Board of Authority contemplated in the recently passed Broadcasting Act. The OAS electoral observation mission recommends that regulations made pursuant to the Act should limit the discretion of the Board and should set out in detail both the conditions governing licenses and clarifications of the general terms used in the Act.
* A legal review of the campaign financing framework. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of a requirement for disclosure of campaign expenditures prior to the elections, to the establishment of criteria for private and foreign contributions, and to instituting public campaign financing.
* A review of options for proportional party access to paid and free advertising time without the existing requirement by state channels for a 48 hour prior submission for review.
2. Review of the electoral system and legal framework.
The OAS mission recommends that the various political stakeholders review the existing electoral legal framework in the following areas:
6. Given that the Guyanese electoral system requires voters to mark a ballot for the party, not a named candidate, the mission recommends revisiting the possibility of allowing direct representation to provide greater choice for voters and direct access to political representatives.
7. A review of the composition of the Electoral Commission to potentially incorporate technical criteria and to establish mechanisms that guarantee plurality. These recommendations are designed to enhance independence and to reduce the perception of politicization of the electoral process.
8. The level of legal detail and discretion afforded the Commission regarding electoral procedures. The OAS mission recommends the consideration of safeguards and detailed regulations to ensure full independence and guarantee participation by all citizens.
9. Guaranteed availability and disbursement of the approved allotment of resources for the electoral process to GECOM on a regular, scheduled basis during electoral years.
10. As recommended by the 2006 OAS electoral observation mission, constitutionally mandated local elections should be held soon to increase the inclusivity of the political system.
3. Determination of and adherence to timely and standardized procedures for the electoral process.
The OAS mission recommends that GECOM incorporate stringent deadlines for the electoral calendar and for changes in procedures prior to election day.
4. Definition of the tabulation process and ensuring the chain of custody for electoral results.
The OAS EOM recommends a complete review of the procedures for the transmission and tabulation of results and for the declaration of both preliminary and final results. The mission also recommends that additional mechanisms be implemented to secure electoral materials at all times.
5. Strengthening the promotion of gender balanced participation throughout the electoral process.
Given that party leaders have complete discretion in deciding which candidates from the list actually gain seats in the assembly, the OAS electoral observation mission recommends further mechanisms to ensure the continued political participation of women, both within political party structures, by supporting training programs for female candidates, and throughout the GECOM hierarchy.
Conclusion:
The OAS electoral observation mission acknowledges and applauds the overall quality of the preparations for election day. Against this background, the issues that arose during the post-electoral process were particularly unfortunate. In the future, the mission urges GECOM to address the challenges observed in the tabulation procedures and to work diligently to develop additional transparency mechanisms. The OAS mission also hopes that the newly elected government and Assembly will further the consolidation of Guyana’s democratic processes by guaranteeing an even more balanced playing field for electoral competition in future processes.
For their commitment to carrying out the elections in a peaceful fashion, the OAS mission congratulates the people of Guyana. In addition, the mission thanks the governments of Argentina, Chile, Serbia, the United States, and the United Kingdom along with Elections Canada for their contributions.
