General and local government elections should not be held at the same time

Dear Editor,

This is in reference to Mike Persaud’s ‘Local government and general elections should be held at the same time’ (SN, Sept 25). I had long supported this idea but having studied local governance and political systems of several countries, there is merit in having separate dates for the two elections.

Mr Persaud is interested in reducing the costs by holding the two elections simultaneously, and that was also my initial reason for arguing for both elections to be held on the same date. But I was also interested in maximizing voter participation in the process by having dual elections simultaneously. However, following extensive reading on the subject, advocates for separate dates for both elections note that democracy (institutionalizing the habit of voting) is not cheap and no expense should be spared in giving people the opportunity to vote for local representation at regular periodic intervals.

The Commonwealth tradition is to hold local and national elections on different dates. All Caricom states hold local elections on a different date from the national elections. Indeed, virtually the entire globe holds general and local elections on different dates. Almost all of Europe holds general and local elections on different dates as do most countries in Africa as well as South Asian countries. The election to the European parliament is also held on a different date from national elections; at times some countries hold local and European parliamentary elections on the same date. Generally, this was done not to save on costs but to increase voter turnouts that were very low relative to general elections and local elections. South Africa also holds provincial and general elections on the same date but local elections at a different time. Some states in America and provinces in Canada hold elections on the same day, but local elections are held on different dates. The vast majority of American local governments hold off-cycle elections away from presidential or mid-term Congressional elections. Local elections in New York City, for example, are held the year after the presidential election.

The main reason writers opt for holding local and general elections in other countries on different dates is similar to the one given by President Ramotar: they are different elections and should be held at different times to avoid confusion in balloting, etc. Mr Persaud spoke of having two separate ballots – one for general and one for local. Guyana does have two ballots (although on one paper) in its national general elections – one for the party at a national level and one for a party at a regional level. Local government on the same day would be a third ballot. National elections are for a five year term whereas local government is for a three year term and could create confusion.

I am of the view that separate regular, free and fair elections (general and local) are a hallmark and cornerstone of democracy allowing people to send a message (on political support and or on governance) to their national representatives. People must get into the habit of voting regularly as they do in America and other advanced democracies. Guyana was tainted with electoral rigging, and the failure to hold local elections for the last 17 years does not help to enshrine democracy. Guyanese needs to become re-energized into a habit of voting – their only form of political participation as politicians do not consider their views in between elections. The more elections the country can have, the more opportunities voters have to send a message to the politicians on (support for or displeasure with) national governance. It allows political parties to wake up – people are displeased if they get a jolt in the vote. A case in point is Trinidad where the government was slipping up in its governance and even neglecting its own base. The base voted against the ruling party in local elections in 2013 after giving it a huge mandate in 2010. The government quickly addressed the needs of its base over the last year pumping resources like never before seen; political fortunes seem to turning around with the ruling party now ahead in all opinion polls for re-election in 2015.

Another reason advanced for separating the dual elections is that people vote differently in local, provincial (state) and general elections, and as such, having these elections on the same date would put voters in a tight spot on how to vote as it prevents them from doing a proper evaluation of performance before they cast their ballots.

Yet another reason for having local and general elections on different dates, is to provide a strategic opportunity for organized groups to influence election outcomes, especially at the local level, empowering local groups to run their own affairs. On this note, local government elections should be held in Guyana once it has been determined the electoral list is ready and preparations are completed. If Gecom is ready for general elections, then it should also be ready for local elections as the same list is used for the elections except for updating it.

My issue with local elections in Guyana is that they are meaningless unless the people are empowered to control and/or shape the affairs of their community. Power should be devolved away from the centre to the local bodies as is the case in the US and other developed countries. Too much power has been concentrated in the hands of those who run the national government with the local bodies powerless to do anything; the localities, especially those far away from the urban areas, are neglected and get the least amount of resources. There is need for a decentralization of power so that people can be in charge of day-to-day matters like infrastructure, policing, education, culture, traffic violations, licensing, health, births, deaths, marriages, etc. They should not have to beg the central government to protect them from the common bandit or to fix a road or to control flooding unless it is a national disaster. The bodies can address local issues with revenues provided by the central government buttressed by the power to raise additional revenues through the installation fees and taxation that exist in the US, Canada, Europe and India and so many other progressive countries.

I recall participating at a plenary session with Dr Jagan at the July 1989 GOPIO conference at the Sheraton Center in Manhattan, where he committed to devolving power to local government should he be elected as President. Time did not allow President Jagan to implement his position on the decentralization of power but his successors have not embraced the devolution of authority to the common folk. In fact, none of the three parties seems interested in giving power to their supporters; they wish to hog power for the central government with the two opposition parties hoping one day to exercise the vast powers given to the national government in the fraudulent Burnham constitution. The parties can still agree to decentralize power before local elections are held if they truly support peoples’ empowerment. On reducing costs for having simultaneous elections, the two opposition parties are gung ho on having general elections two years early with the result not expected to be much different from the current parliamentary make-up; costs are not a factor in early general elections. It should also not be an issue for local elections. At any rate, APNU is calling for separate local elections now, and the AFC is calling for separate general elections now. They are not interested in costs for those exercises. And as scholars have argued, and I agree, costs can’t be the major and only factor when institutionalizing democracy. Let the people vote as often as they can.

Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram