There can be few democratic countries in the world where so much suspicion, scepticism and uncertainty have swirled around an elections body for as many decades as is the case with Gecom. It has been modelled, of course, on the political structure of the society, and as a consequence exhibits most of the same ingrained flaws. Evenly divided into government appointed and opposition appointed commissioners, who are supposed to be independent but in fact reflect the perceptions of those who appointed them, the key figure in the commission is the chairperson, who has the casting vote. It is not an appointment, one would have thought, that most people would hanker after, although some chairmen in the past have been more decisive than others.
The entire nation is familiar with the tiresome story. Following last December’s vote of no confidence and the departure of Dr Steve Surujbally as Gecom chairman, President David Granger wasted an unconscionable amount of time. In the process he rejected the names on three separate lists submitted by the Leader of the Opposition, from which he was constitutionally required to select a chairperson ‘not unacceptable’ to him. This is despite the fact that several of those names were eminently suitable. He then went ahead and unilaterally appointed Justice James Patterson as Chairman, an appointment which in June was deemed unconstitutional by the CCJ.
To everyone’s relief, the President and Mr Jagdeo finally agreed thereafter on the appointment of Justice Claudette Singh as Chairperson of the Commission, but if the citizenry thought that their troubles in this area were finally over, they were very much mistaken. Before he departed Justice Patterson had left a poisoned chalice in the form of insisting on a new voters’ list to be compiled via house-to-house registration. In fact, as has been frequently pointed out, including in the leader columns of this newspaper, this process was quite unnecessary, and hardly warrants another recitation here. Suffice it to say, the rational view is that cleaning the list could be accomplished best via the Claims and Objection period, and that in any case the government had won the 2015 national poll on the basis of the existing list, and had raised no objections either to using it for two local government elections after that.
This notwithstanding, President Granger has held doggedly to the assertion firstly, that only house-to-house registration could ensure a sanitised list, and secondly, that Gecom would have to indicate to him when an election could be held. Given the house-to-house process, with which the opposition refused to cooperate, that date at one point was suggested as late December, while the PPP/C was of the view it might take us into next year. Subsequently, a speeded-up date towards the end of October was mooted. What is particularly inexplicable is that after Justice Patterson stepped down, Chief Election Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield decided to resume the house-to-house exercise on the basis of the instruction which the commission under the former chairman had issued.
Now all of this is in the context, as everyone well knows, that the government lost a vote of no-confidence on December 21 last year, and that under the constitution the Cabinet should have resigned and an election held by March 21. Owing, however, to the fact that the government went to court, the period was artificially postponed so to speak, and the three months kicked in following the handing down of the consequential orders by the CCJ on June 18. The new date for an election should therefore be September 18. The fact that there is a constitutional deadline to meet has not disturbed the peace of mind of either the CEO or the government commissioners, the last-named of whom wanted Justice Claudette Singh to continue with the house-to-house activity.
The whole sorry saga since December 21 revolves around President Granger’s seeming determination to postpone elections, possibly until their due date had not the no-confidence vote supervened, and perhaps even in order to favour a framework or implement policies which might make it easier for the government to win another general election. Despite the CCJ rulings, he has not brought himself or his government into compliance with constitutional requirements, and the Cabinet, for example, has not resigned. He is proceeding as if the whole political and governmental situation is normal. And at the heart of his procrastination tactics lies Gecom.
Now it may be the case, as has been suggested, that the coalition feels that Mr Charandass Persaud’s vote was tainted, which has justified them wasting public money on unwinnable court cases, on employing delaying manoeuvres in Gecom and on thumbing their noses at the constitution. It doesn’t. Mr Persaud’s behaviour might be deemed dishonourable in so far as he gave his party no warning of his defection, but that is not something which is justiciable. In the absence of any evidence of corruption, it was quite legal, and has been so ruled by this country’s highest court. The government, and in particular its Attorney General, seem to be resistant to accepting that a court ruling is a court ruling, whether or not one agrees with it, and the constitution is what it is, whether or not one likes a given article. Yet the rule of law is premised on such acceptance.
Most recently Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire ruled following a court case that the registration exercise is not unconstitutional, but that existing registrants cannot be deleted from the Gecom database unless the legal criteria are met, namely death or specified means of disqualification.
Following her appointment, Justice Singh appeared to hesitate for an unnecessary time, even awaiting the written form of the Chief Justice’s decision. However, on Wednesday, she made her decision, bringing a premature end to the house-to-house process on Saturday, in order to facilitate the holding of general elections, and merging the information already garnered with the National Register of Registrants Database.
For those who know anything about the history of Gecom, particularly recently, there must have been a collective sinking of hearts. It is not a simple straightforward matter combining the two, and will inevitably lead to yet more postponements. The opposition commissioners have already registered their concerns about the inevitable delays which will follow as well as the unverifiable nature of the data collected in the house-to-house operation, while in a letter to this newspaper, Attorney Christopher Ram itemised some of the issues which would confront the commission staff in being required to effect the amalgamation. Among other things he alluded to the presumption that the house-to-house exercise had been conducted with all the attendant legal safeguards in place, but which he suggested were not.
Then there is the complexity of integrating the two lists where even a variation affecting a single name, “will require extensive further work.” He went on to ask, “And what if the exercise has produced names of persons not eligible to be on the list? It is unreasonable and wishful thinking to believe that any claims and objections exercise, no matter how extensive, is going to be able to ferret [out] such names. It is far easier and less prone to errors for the Claims and Objections exercise to result in insertions rather than the reverse.”
There is too, the very fundamental problem to which he adverts, namely that there are now two classes of persons, viz. those who were registered and those who were not, which “would be completely unacceptable in any country with a normal government and a more responsible, impartial and less partisan Elections Commission.”
One might have thought that given the circumstances, the CEO would have been winding down registration operations prior to closing them altogether on August 31, but no, against all logic and common sense it has been decided to extend the hours of the field staff in the remaining days. What on earth is the rationale for that? If the fusing of the two lists as they stand will cause all kinds of difficulties, where is the justification for trying to complicate the matter even further? The electorate can only hope that this is short-sightedness and not another little stratagem to delay elections.
As yet, the timeline for this latest development on the tortuous road to elections has not been announced. Not until then will we have a better idea of what we may expect.
