Dear Editor,
Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye’s letter, “No mention of the political opposition in implementation of electoral law reform” (SN May 8th) contains a few errors, which are as follows: Worse management of elections in history? What are the facts to support this charge? GECOM itself released a statement at the end of polling day, March 2, 2020, noting that the actual voting went smoothly. Problems developed in the second phase: Certifying of SOPs. Nine regions had been done and accepted. Only in R-4, Returning Officer Mingo began corrupting the certification of the SOP. What the world witnessed was that GECOM itself comprised of moles planted in the Agency who openly tried to steal the election on behalf of PNC. Chairperson Claudette Singh plainly refused to intervene to stop Mingo from subverting and corrupting the R-4 certification. (It is like the CEO of a big corporation turning a blind eye to allow a subordinate officer commit fraud). This matter went to court – and the Court also refused/failed to act forcefully to make sure the certification of the SOPs proceeded smoothly. Mr. Ogunseye is plainly wrong on this point.
The U S, UK, EU engaged in regime change? Another false accusation. These countries – together with CARICOM – fought bravely to make sure the attempt at stealing the election was thwarted and that the Recount of ballots be done according to proper standards. And, that the results be declared and accepted. All of this took 5-months because there were very serious problems in the state. In the end PNC under the direction of Mr. Granger still refused to accept the results. This is where the United States Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, stepped in and shall I say “gently nudged” Mr. Granger to accept the results of the recount. These are the facts. No one did “regime change” in Guyana. Mr. Ogunseye alleges “new forms of neo-colonialism” and “PPP and US conspiracy against [PNC]”. These are nonsensical and baseless accusations. Editor, permit to make this observation: Constitutional and Electoral Reform alone will not suffice to bring constitutional order and stable government to Guyana.
This nation witnessed how Mr. Granger refused to abide by the laws when he refused to accept any of 18-names from three lists of 6 each because he wanted to appoint a crony to chair GECOM. CCJ later ruled his action unconstitutional. My point is that no matter what the clearly written laws are, PNC are of the mind that if it doesn’t work to their benefit, they will not abide by the laws. PNC are wedded to the idea of “entitlement to rule”. They have demonstrated over the last six election cycles that they cared very little about the rules of democracy and Free and Fair Elections. What we need is to change the deeply-rooted racial politics of Guyana. Both PPP and PNC need to evolve – and become genuinely multi-racial. The evolution to genuine multiracial parties will solve (in my opinion) 50% of Guyana’s problems. The other 50% will require a new Constitution and a new Electoral Commission. Guyana is a deeply divided country, divided between two racial groups. And, that’s precisely what makes it so difficult to solve between and among themselves. Therefore, I recommend enlightened mediators from abroad. The US, UK and EU are very credible liberal democracies and have been involved in Guyana’s political and election problems since 1992 and before that. The PPP and PNC should agree to invite these nations to help mediate Guyana’s intractable political problems.
Sincerely,
Mike Persaud
