Dear Editor,
I write to you in the midst of an ongoing debate concerning the Guyana Elections Commission’s “readiness” to do what it must do to be in compliance with the three months mandate to hold an election after the successful passing of the December 21st 2018 no-confidence vote. Much has been disputed in the public domain regarding this already, but I believe there is room in the discussion to talk about the hurdles GECOM is confronted with and the future of GECOM as the guardian institution responsible for ensuring free, fair and just elections.
Since the passing of the no-confidence vote, many revelations became apparent concerning GECOM’s readiness to prepare for the calling or constitutional demand of an election. There is no doubt in my mind, and for others I’m sure, that the failure of GECOM to keep the National Register of Registrants Database (NRRDB) in optimal and up-to-date condition is astounding. But it is not entirely GECOM’s fault. Political leaders and other democratic stakeholders have failed to collaborate with GECOM and each other to resolve many glaring issues with Guyana’s electoral procedures. This is very unfortunate since for GECOM to be in a perpetual state of readiness it must also be in a perpetual state of development.
GECOM is not only the institution responsible for electoral matters but also the hallmark of Guyana’s democratic structure whereby the people of Guyana can exercise their right to vote for who they prefer to represent them in governance. Therefore, political institutions have a democratic responsibility to the electorate to upkeep their commitment to national resolution and democracy.
Regarding GECOM, there is an urgent need for institutional development. Over the years, many
external observers, such as the Organisation for American States, CARICOM and the Carter Center, have written extensive reports covering several of Guyana’s national elections. At the end of their reports they provide recommendations which could improve operational procedures and the overall integrity of GECOM’s electoral responsibilities. While many strides have been made, there still seems to be many obstacles preventing GECOM from truly taking on the role of an independent institution. One such obstacle is continued
political interference which stifles GECOM’s role as an impartial agency. This is perhaps the most despairing in a series of obstacles that needs immediate attention and resolution. There must be a way in which GECOM can keep its integrity as an impartial agency and still be informed, not governed by, the views of political parties or partisan agents, with the inclusion of NGOs, civil society groups, and others.
Undoubtedly, the current system GECOM adheres to is extremely labour intensive and tremendously expensive, putting a heavy price tag on taxpayers to compensate for during every election cycle, simply just to vote. Perhaps GECOM can learn from countries that have tried and tested many variations of electoral processes. One that comes to mind is the model practised in Finland.
In Finland, the entire electoral process is electronically managed and administered. Voter
registration begins at birth, with a unique identification number assigned to every citizen. Although this is mandatory, it avoids the state from prosecuting its citizens for not complying with obligatory registration mandates, which in Guyana citizens or residents can be fined for not ensuring their names are registered. Virtually all public agencies in Finland, such as hospitals and tax institutions, are obligated to transfer necessary records pertaining to a citizen or resident to the state for appropriate processing, which includes updating the central database of registrants. If a citizen or resident relocates regionally, they are held responsible for updating an address change to the state, which then disseminates that change of address to all other public institutions, such as the passport office, national identification office, driver’s license agency, etc. When an election is on the horizon, the state notifies eligible citizens or residents of that upcoming election and the place or district of which they’re eligible to cast their ballots.
What we need more than ever is for political agents and the citizenry to act out their civic responsibilities to build a better and sustainable nation. What we need are viable solutions and fluid ongoing discussions on how to better improve the Elections Commission. For over a decade (or longer) GECOM has been met with scrutiny over its integrity and questions over its ability to produce impartial election results. But so long as we continue to bicker over these matters and not do something to address
these concerns, we are left in a state of deadlock, repeating the same mistakes and mantras, and revealing hypocrisy after hypocrisy like a true broken record. This must stop. What should be of utmost priority for any leader, in this context, is fighting to bring GECOM to a state of perpetual readiness that is acceptable to all, but most importantly to the people of Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Ferlin F. Pedro
