Dear Editor,
Political analysts will attempt to derive rational reasons to explain the events of election 2020 and why it unfolded the way it did. Undoubtedly, there were questionable actions regarding GECOM officials, namely the Chief Election Officer and the Returning Officer of Region Four, which resulted in several court challenges that ended with a declaration that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) won the election. Throughout the entire electoral debacle while ravished by political turmoil on the streets and the onslaught of a deadly virus, Guyanese were mere spectators to a political show while battling to make ends meet during a rapid decline of the global economy that contributed to domestic instability. Added to the burden of everyday survival, many feared for their lives in communities that were historically affected by the conditions of a destabilized political landscape fueled by politicians who, without hesitation, relied on the aged politic of ethnicity or race to rally support.
Despite being a land of “many peoples”, heightened ethnic tension between two of Guyana’s majority ethnic groups, Indo and Afro Guyanese people, were beginning to resemble the bitter days in history of ethnic rivalry. Editor, the implications of prior elections stacked on top of the outrageous events of 2020 still linger today with no end to triumphant race-inspired politics in sight.
Many felt a glimmer of hope at election 2015, which saw the two-decade reign of the PPP/C come to an end. Politics of unity and change were mantras adopted and celebrated. It was a win for democracy, a win for the people. Fast forward to election 2020, however, the ‘A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change’ (APNU+AFC) coalition party suffered a significant defeat at the polls. But instead of admitting having lost the will of the majority, the coalition party, rather peculiarly, contended that they had won ‘fair and free’. There were about four versions of electoral results produced by senior agents of the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) that not only differed significantly but proved the APNU+AFC as victorious. But does ‘fair and free’ entail inconsistent proofs of one’s victory?
When doubts were raised concerning the results, the APNU+AFC dismissed these as without merit. The opposition and other contending parties formed an alliance to try to stop what they felt was a severe case of electoral fraud in motion. When pressed by the media on matters of electoral fraud, the reaction of members of the coalition party was not only astonishing but despairing to know they defended the inconsistencies produced by senior GECOM officials, largely because these inconsistences ‘proved’ their case of victory. We know the conclusion of the tale.
There was opportunity for the APNU+AFC to fix a broken system during their tenure. But despite countless executive reassurance, GECOM remained what it continues to be today—the control centre of a two-party majority largely occupied by partisan guards. This has to change!
There has been discussion that the major constituent of the APNU+AFC coalition, the PNCR, needs ‘new’ leadership to muster a new beginning. Some think that this rebranding would merely allow the party (or the people) to forget its past and adopt to a new age of political criterion. Others say that because the ethnic influence of the party is strongly associated with Afro-Guyanese people, it is only for the sake of its survival that they should introduce fresh and young leadership given the dominance of an aged executive. While both proposals may allow for momentum in the long run, folks fail to see meaningful alternatives.
On the former point, the historical stain of electoral rigging linked to the PNCR carved a severe wound into the party’s legacy. Trust was a critical issue for the party during the lead-up to election 2015. The party distanced itself from the party of Mr. Burnham, citing a distinct leadership. But given what unfolded in 2020, trust and integrity remain critical for the party, with a renewed haunting that will follow them for a long time. Additionally, anyone who has the sanity to devote loyalty and associate with the PNCR after the events of election 2020 would be confronted with immense moral criticism. So, merely rebranding would not suffice.
On the latter point, though the PNCR is predominantly linked to an Afro-Guyanese identity and purport themselves as representing an ethnic interest, they have failed to commit to action the sort of support needed for Afro-Guyanese people, particularly those in rural communities and those who live in impoverished conditions due to severe poverty and settlement displacement, a long-standing matter neither of the majoritarian parties attend to. ‘Tiger-bay’ remains a stereotype, and the conditions of ‘Tin-city’ continue to gnaw at our humanity as a society. So, Afro-Guyanese do not need the exclusive representation of the PNCR to gain support. There are other parties, without bearing the blandness of ethnic exclusivity, that wish to resolve the ‘pangs of distress’ affecting Afro-Guyanese people.
Perhaps the biggest, though mistaken assumption, behind both proposals discussed above is that the PNCR is immortal. Unfortunately, a party’s relevance can fade over time. There is no place for party paramountcy in Guyanese democracy.
Yours faithfully,
Ferlin Pedro
