Dear Editor,
I admire the intent of Kowlasar Misir’s letter “They should prioritize democratic ideals” (SN,May 1,2020), which is a response to my letter “ `Malicious, mischievous and reckless editorial’ (SN April 29). And I endorse his call for “transparency, credibility, and accountability over partisan agenda”. But I wish to remind him that democracy is more than counting votes correctly, and it cannot be built on subversive politics. It is our collective responsibility to create an environment of reasonableness, mutual respect, and social trust, to facilitate the development of democracy. Not every element of democracy could be legislated. Much depends on our attitudes, behaviour, and adherence to democratic ethics. If we want a democratic society, we all must learn and practice democracy.
One fundamental principle of democratic thought is that you must give the other side a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard. A related principle is that we allow facts to guide our judgement, not what we think or feel. What you think or feel are reflective of your own biases and prejudices. Facts transcend that and permit you to be fair. As we follow facts, we follow accurate knowledge and understanding. A professional media house operates on this foundation.
That GECOM’s inefficiencies were exposed are without doubt. That GECOM’s performance raised suspicions is without doubt. That actions of the Foreign Minister and the Police Force raised suspicions are without doubt. But inefficiencies and suspicions are never equivalent to fraud unless proven. No evidence of electoral fraud was established in the High or Supreme Court. No observer claimed fraud. They suggested that the lack of transparency questions the credibility of GECOM’s tabulation. A lack of transparency, while suspicious, is not equivalent to wrongdoing once consistent with the law. The standard of transparency in Guyana is not necessarily the same as in observers’ countries. Note, elements of the observers’ allegations were proven wrong in the courts. The only thing that Stabroek News, or anyone else who was not involved in the tabulations process could prove at this time, is that GECOM’s tabulation differs from the PPP/C’s. There is no validated evidence to support or reject either tabulation. APNU+AFC did not release theirs. Speculation on that is not evidence. In the absence of conclusive evidence, no professionalized journalist would malign GECOM employees as riggers and implicitly impugn the competence of the professional scrutineers from the Caribbean, the party representatives, elections commissioners, and others, who would be monitoring the recount process from beginning to end. None of the editors I worked with in North America would have accepted that. They would have asked, what if the recount evidence proves that I was misled?
Finally, GECOM’s obligation is to the people of Guyana. Not any political party or observer. There are issues across the political spectrum which must be answered. Whether the forensic recount starts from Region 10 to 1 or from 1 to 10, Region 4 would still be counted.
Yours faithfully,
Lin-Jay Harry-Voglezon
