Dear Editor,
Why is there this continuing hold up and holding out? On what grounds can any objections that may be founded made to stand, stand a chance of succeeding? The way I see this is simple: the mere fact that there is dawdling and beating about the bush on this very sensitive and delicately placed issue of live streaming, speaks for itself, to a world of truths that struggle to break out of their increasingly shaky confines. We have had a very smelly process thus far. I recommend that the disinfectant of live streaming take its proper place in the recount activities now on tap and about to unfold before GECOM.
We cannot go on like this indefinitely and without the kind of firm basis that is convincing. I don’t think that there is anything that could be held out as persuasive relative to defences for, or advocacy in favour of, not allowing live streaming to occur, to take its rightful place in an election process that has been about all that is wrong, all that is troubling and unendingly unappealing. There is no reliance anymore on anything that comes out of the mind and mouth of GECOM, or that is handed down by GECOM’s brass. It just does not pass muster, of the most meagre sort and this is for even the most routine of matters now. Things have gone so far, degraded to such an extent, that any residual trust and the dependency that originates with such are long gone, totally vanished. There is nothing left on which to grasp and hold on, if only for sanity and some degree of rational continuity.
The way I see this is rather straightforward and final; it is nonnegotiable. The human hands and human inputs, left on their own in the calculating and manipulating horror chambers that is GECOM, have lost every speck of credibility. This is notwithstanding any considerations due being given to internationally based outsiders overseeing what takes place. Live streaming contributes an uninterrupted touch and reality that instils a level of confidence that what is captured on pixel is what is being counted and nothing else. If the coalition is about transparency, then live streaming is what it has to be. I encourage it to agree to it.
I understand fully that there may be (will be) underlying objections to what was behind each ballot cast and the places where such occurred; those are sure to be presented and throw a spanner in the works. Given what has occurred, I am unable to envision how matters can be any different, any less tortured.
However, whatever issues and questions raised by any interested parties, as articulated, and captured, will be in the presence of not just those in the vicinity of the recount, but the watching universe of steamed-up and suspicious Guyanese. And moreover, that any related stops and start, any pauses for further probing, are all recorded and imaged and streamed live and directly to Guyanese wherever they may be. The record must speak for itself. We have asked for a transparent process, and with that hopefully agreed to, then we would be in a position to be impartial referee and something of an arbiter, the true voice and weight of the people. To repeat what I said earlier: there is nothing equivalent to live streaming that sets aside misgivings and fears about the worst taking place in the shadows.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
