This is the time for all stakeholders to demonstrate commitment to democratic principles, processes and institutions and not lose sight of the fact that legitimate elections represent the voice and will of the people.
United Nations Resident Coordinator
Today is a very important day in the history of post-Independence Guyana. Citizens will take to the various polling stations throughout the country to cast their ballots for the political parties of their choice which they believe are best suited to manage on their behalf the affairs of the State. This is especially so, considering that Guyana is now an oil-producing nation with the promise of hope that oil revenues, if managed well and prudently in the best interest of all of its peoples, will bring about significant benefits to and improvements in their lives.
(A point to note, however, is that fossil fuels are not only an exhaustible resource but of recent there have also been marked fluctuations in oil prices. Last Friday, West Texas Intermediate plunged to US$43.85 per barrel, the lowest since December 2018; while Brent Crude was slightly below US$50. The importance of promoting and maintaining a diversified economy instead of a mono-product one must therefore not be over-emphasised. We should avoid relying solely on oil revenues which are susceptible to the “Dutch disease” and the “resource curse” and which at some point may not materialize due to factors beyond our control. Additionally, with the thrust towards renewable sources of energy as a result of the Paris Accord on Climate Change, the demand for fossil fuels is likely to be adversely affected. As the saying goes, do not put all your eggs in one basket!)
Background to today’s elections
On 21 December 2018, the National Assembly by a majority of 33 to 32 approved of a vote of no confidence in the Government. By Articles 106(6) and 106(7) of the Constitution, the Cabinet including the President was required to resign, and elections held within three months. However, this was not to be as the Government challenged the Speaker’s ruling, contending that 34 votes were needed for the no confidence motion to succeed in the 65-member Assembly. The matter went all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice which, not unexpectedly, upheld the ruling of the Chief Justice that the vote was validly carried. It was indeed an embarrassing moment for all Guyanese, an unwise move by the Government, and a complete waste of enormous amounts of State resources to seek judicial review of the Speaker’s ruling which everyone, even perhaps those who challenged it, agreed with.
It took a little over a year for the Speaker’s ruling to be finally acknowledged as valid, with the President dissolving Parliament on 30 December 2019, thereby paving the way for today’s elections. A record turn-out of voters is expected in what many believe will be a close contest between the two main political parties, the PPC/C and APNU+AFC. Over the years, these two parties have derived their support overwhelming from the two major ethnic groups, with a little less than ten percent numerically between them, according to the latest population survey.
There is, however, the chance that the new parties can garner enough votes to prevent an outright win for either of the two parties. In this way, they can provide the much-needed balance of power in the Assembly. This may very well be in the best interest of Guyana until the issue of shared governance is addressed via constitutional reform.
Election manifesto and code of conduct
An election manifesto is a social contract between the electorate and a political party. It contains policies and detailed plans for the delivery of public services which the party proposes to implement, if elected to office. The main political parties have put out their manifestos which eligible voters would have reviewed in deciding which of the parties they will support. However, they need to be guarded against political parties making promises that they may be unable to fulfill, as we have seen in the past.
In 2014, the Elections Commission of India had issued guidelines prohibiting political parties from making promises in their election manifestos that would exert undue influence on voters. Here in Guyana, with just three days to go for elections and one day before the campaign period ended, the political parties signed a code of conduct in which they pledged to have their election campaigns devoid of hate speeches, incitement and provocation; not to use state machinery, vehicles, equipment, personnel and the media during the campaign; respect the results, or await the outcome of a judicial review in the event those results are being challenged; and restrain the enthusiasm of supporters during the entire process.
The PPP/C held office for 23 years from 1992 to 2015 and was replaced by the coalition of APNU+AFC. Eligible voters therefore have the benefit of reviewing not only their previous manifestos to ascertain the extent to which they have fulfilled their campaign promises but also their overall performance in government in terms of good governance practices, transparency and accountability as well as adherence to the rule of law. They will also review the manifestos for today’s elections to ascertain whether they adequately address the myriad of issues facing the nation and whether the plans outlined can take Guyana forward economically, socially and otherwise. In the 1960s, Guyana was ahead of countries like Singapore and Malaysia in terms of economic and social development. Today, these two countries are powerhouses while Guyana languishes at the bottom of the table among the Caribbean countries. It is also third poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, despite being endowed with vast amounts of natural resources, even prior to the discovery of oil.
For the new political parties, there is no track record of performance. In the circumstances, the electorate will be guided by the content of their manifestos to determine their adequacy as well as how well they believe that the parties will keep their campaign promises.
Constitutional reform
A key issue facing the nation relates to constitutional reform. The “winner takes all” arrangement has not worked and has retarded progress throughout the post-Independence period. The two major parties have dominated the political landscape since 1968 so much so that whichever of the two parties acceded to political office, the other party, and by extension the ethnic group that supported it, had little or no say in the affairs of the State and indeed felt marginalized.
Since 1992, political parties, when in opposition, had promised faithfully to end the “winner takes all arrangement” and to replace it with shared governance. However, when they won political office, they reneged on their promise because, in their view, party loyalists had to be rewarded with ministerial and other positions. In many instances, this was without due regard for professional and technical competence as well as a working understanding of the operations of government. A typical example is the workings of the Pubic Accounts Committee (PAC) of the National Assembly, charged with the responsibility of scrutinizing the public accounts of the country and making appropriate recommendations to the Assembly for improvement. The last report of the PAC was in respect of 2014, five years in arrears!
That apart, the challenge before us is whether the winning party in today’s elections can demonstrate its commitment to inclusive governance by sharing the Cabinet and ministerial posts with the opposition parties, as a precursor to amendments to the Constitution to institutionalise this arrangement. Or, are we going to wait until the next year five years to do so?
Appeal for peace and calm
Last Thursday, the United Nations Resident Coordinator, Ms. Mikiko Tanaka urged all the political parties contesting the elections to accept the results of today’s elections. She stated that ‘[t]he dignified acceptance of the results by political parties will help to build confidence and trust in state institutions and create a foundation for cooperation beyond the election’. Ms. Tanaka referred to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which outlines 17 goals. According to SDG 16 there can be no sustainable development without stable, secure and inclusive societies with respect for human rights, rule of law and effective governance. SDG 16 also calls for further strengthening of institutions of governance, more inclusive and participatory processes as well as renewed commitment to end all forms of violence and insecurity, including gender-based violence.
This column joins the call for citizens, including political party activists, to allow peace and calm to prevail in the coming hours and days before the final results are announced. Like all past elections, there will be tensions, but we have the ability to rise to the occasion and eschew all forms of action that will cause a loss of credibility and fairness in the electoral process. As soon as we cast our ballots, we must leave for our homes; allow for the arrangements that have been put in place by the Elections Commission for the smooth conduct of the elections, to prevail; and await the results in the coming days.
Whatever the results of the poll, we should be guided by the views of all the international observer groups which include the Carter Center, Organisation of American States (OAS), the Commonwealth Secretariat, CARICOM and the European Union (EU). According the EU Observer Mission, the following criteria will be used during its observation of the electoral process:
► The degree of freedom of political parties and candidates to assemble and express their views;
► The degree of impartiality shown by the election administration;
► The fairness of access to state resources during the election;
► The universal franchise afforded to voters;
► The degree of access for political parties and candidates to the media, in particular, the state media;
► The conduct of polling, counting and tabulation of votes; and
► Other issues relating to the democratic nature of the election such as legal framework, campaign violence, rule of law, and campaign finance.
The Carter Center, which is co-led by Aminata Touré (former Prime Minister of Senegal) and Jason J. Carter (grandson of President Jimmy Carter), stated that it would observe and examine key aspects of the electoral process, including the pre-electoral environment, the status of GECOM’s preparations for elections, campaigning, voting, counting and the tabulation of the results.
The OAS Mission and the Commonwealth Secretariat are headed by former Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding and former Barbados Prime Minister Owen Arthur respectively. Mr. Arthur stated that his team would ‘assess the pre-election environment, polling day activities and the post-election period, and consider the various factors impinging on the credibility of the electoral process as a whole’.
If the views of these international observer groups are that the elections were free, fair and credible, it is the solemn and patriotic duty of all citizens to respect the results and support the duly elected government in its efforts to take the country forward over the next five years. At this juncture in the history of our country, we may wish to reflect on and remember the words of Abraham Lincoln in his famous 272 words Gettysburg address on 19 November 1863 that marked the end of the American Civil War:
We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. (Emphasis added.)
