Dear Editor,
I am neither surprised nor astonished that David Hinds would unabashedly construct the narrative that he posited in your letter column (Stabroek News, 2020.05.20, Letters…) and across various other print and electronic media. In the saga of elections 2020, the truth has become very elastic, and narrative shopping and revisionism, a new art form.
Dr. Hinds, through his unfettered access to the Guyana Chronicle and Kaieteur News, has written on a wide variety of issues as it relates to Guyana. In some instances, there were studied attempts at balance. However, weaved throughout his many columns was great sympathy for the APNU+AFC. Given that his party was part of the governing coalition, this was inevitable. However, as an academic, it is incumbent that he demonstrates objectivity and dispassionate analysis, and separates his assessments as to whether (1) he is serving as an advocate for his side; or (2) he is in search of the objective truth. The kind of equivocation that he seeks to create in his latest contributions fails the smell test. Truth was butchered at the altar of political loyalty.
Dr. Hinds’ letter covered three broad themes and, at this time, I am limiting my response to the narrative he seeks to establish with respect to the credibility of the March 2, 2020 elections. Editor, permit me to address a few preliminary points which I believe are important to set the context of my response.
The 2020 elections were not fought on a plank to solve Guyana’s existential problems. No one doubts that Guyana needs an effective and responsible government that is held to account by a robust and empowered opposition. No one doubts that Guyana needs strong and independent institutions that are guided by the rule of law, and not by the rule of tribe. Guyana needs a fundamental culture of change – something that has eluded it for over five decades.
It is trite to say that the larger issues that afflict Guyana were not born yesterday. Important as they are, none of the major political parties focused on addressing these issues in their loud campaigns. To now submerge what has been a blatant attempt to steal an electoral mandate, under the umbrella of Guyana’s ills, is nothing more than a bid to clutter the salient issue of electoral fraud; it only adds to the cacophony that surrounds the March 2, 2020 elections. There can be no meaningful discussion on the issue of inclusive government (whatever is being envisaged) until credible and accurate results of the 2020 elections are declared. To advocate for any other course of action is to reward bullies, cheats, and opportunists, and to encourage illegal actions.
This was Guyana’s first social media elections, and this is what saved the day. Contrary to Dr. Hinds, Guyana’s current miasma is electoral in nature. It arose from the illegal attempt by the staff of GECOM to fabricate results to declare the incumbent APNU+AFC as the winner of the elections. The political parties agreed on the rules and ran robust campaigns. The elections were credible and transparent, and were held in a largely peaceful manner. When it became evident that the incumbent lost, it sought to hold onto power by weaponizing GECOM. The fabrication of results for Regional District 4 (R4) ensued. However, the 1970s playbook could not survive the 2020’s social media proliferation. The resultant furious narrative creation by the incumbent and their columnists is just subterfuge.
Dr. Hinds takes the reader through a brief evolution of Guyana’s electoral history starting with the 1961 elections. At the outset, the writer made the stunning allegation that this election was rigged by the PPP. He would like us to suspend our disbelief that the PPP was in a position to rig an election in colonial Guyana. No empirical evidence to support this contention was provided. Probably the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (UK Gov) can provide some clarity on how the PPP rigged Guyana’s 1961 elections.
Dr. Hinds’ second proposition was his classification of the PNC years of rigging as a successful PPP perception exercise. He contends that “the PPP was able to paint the PNC as chronic riggers” in the decades spanning 1968 -1985. Is Dr. Hinds now arguing that the PNC did not, in fact, rig the elections in 1968, 1973, 1980 and 1985? Is Dr. Hinds alleging that, in reality, all that occurred was a highly successful PPP campaign at creating a narrative of electoral malpractice? Certainly, Dr. Hinds is entitled to his personal opinions, but not to his own facts. There must be a limit to the distortion of history.
It is incumbent upon Dr. Hinds to provide empirical, documentary and testamentary evidence from independent sources to justify his classification that the PNC years of rigging was simply a successful PPP perception exercise. Anyone can be voluble about rigging, but are the claims backed up by verifiable evidence?
It is not as if Dr. Hinds is unaware of the conduct of elections in the 1968 -1985 time period. He is certainly aware of the role of the PNC, aided by the military, in the disenfranchisement of a significant segment of the Guyanese population. He knows that a department of the Government ran the elections. He must undoubtedly be aware that independent observers and party agents were precluded from being part of the electoral exercise, or to accompany the ballot boxes to the counting centres. People died to safeguard their votes. It is unacceptable that the lives lost in the decades of rigged elections have been reduced to a “successful PR exercise.” Revisionism of this nature must be rejected because they are repugnant.
Dr. Hinds contends that we must correct the perception that “electoral rigging is not a one-sided phenomenon.” Commen-tators cannot have it both ways: (1) posit that ethnicity plays a pivotal role in Guyana’s elections; and (2) argue that the PPP rigged elections. What would be the need, given the numerical strength of their support base and the nature of voting in Guyana? Suffice to say, despite extensive claims, there was no evidence to substantiate election malpractice even after a thorough audit of the 1997 elections under the Ulric Cross Commission. Major General (Rtd) Joseph Singh and Dr. Steve Surujbally would certainly contest Dr. Hinds’ assertion on the credibility of the elections held under their watch. One can point to the allocation of seats in the 2011 elections that eventually saw a PPP/C minority Government as an instance of attempted malfeasance. Naturally, given that it would have benefitted the PPP, the inference can be drawn that the attempt was at their behest.
There is no emerging thesis of equal tampering in political strongholds as is being advanced by Dr. Hinds. On the contrary, the recount vividly demonstrates the systematic fabrication of results by Mingo and elements within GECOM to benefit the incumbent administration. Dr. Hinds is thunderously silent on this issue. His misguided equivocation must be rejected because the evidence does not support such a contention.
What has been aptly demonstrated through actionable evidence – Mingo’s verbal declaration compared with (1) the SOR and (2) copies of SOPs made publicly available by the PPP/C – is that at the tabulation centre for R4, GECOM staff sought to inflate votes for APNU+AFC and reduce votes for the PPP/C. This is the emerging picture, not the flailing concoctions by the APNU+AFC that puts Circe’s (the Odyssey) shapeshifting to shame.
Far from correcting a narrative, Dr. Hinds is attempting to create a narrative that has no empirical basis. The party that Dr. Hinds supported made multiple attempts to get them declared the winner based on the fraudulent declarations. They claimed that they won the elections, and declared that it was free and fair. After protestations by all present, including negative reports from independent observers, and court hearings, all parties agreed to a recount. Dr. Hinds’ party then approached the Court for an injunction to declare the recount unlawful; as a result, the initial CARICOM high level team was forced to leave. His party later insisted on a slothful process, opposed all transparency measures (like televising the process), and blatantly exploited the Covid-19 pandemic for political expediency. As the R4 fraud became apparent, they countered with wild allegations in a desperate attempt to shift the narrative. They now question the credibility of the entire elections which, mind you, they previously declared they won (still maintains this position), gathered their supporters for multiple celebration events, and demanded that their candidate be sworn in as president (still maintains this position).
To elevate such non-meritorious allegations to the level of electoral impropriety is utterly unacceptable. The incumbent has attempted to manufacture irregularities through fishing expeditions – and ably assisted by elements within GECOM.
Agents for the smaller parties have refuted in great detail the spurious and unsubstantiated allegations that are being levelled on a routine basis with respect to dead and migrant voters. No evidence is provided – just broad allegations. Social media is awash with the details of persons who were alleged to be dead, but were found to be alive. Death certificates have been produced, only to be debunked. Further, entire series of voters (on the list) being objected to, did not, in fact, vote. They continue to advance these broad claims despite the fact that their allegations are being demonstrated as patently false.
The inundation of the observation reports is nothing but an attempt by the APNU+AFC to create, post facto, “evidence” to support its baseless allegations. The APNU+AFC cannot be allowed to vitiate a credible election and derail the recount process in a bid to seek a “do over.” The architects that sought to steal an election mandate cannot be rewarded. They must be punished: 2020 cannot be 1968, 1973, 1980 and 1985.
I would urge Dr. Hinds to get the party he supports to release their copies of the SOPs. In addition, I beseech him to publicly demand that GECOM furnish its copies of the SOPs for public scrutiny. A just society is not built on lies. Strong institutions are not built on fraud. The nation building process must start with the truth. Guyana deserves no less.
Yours faithfully,
Kowlasar Misir
