On Sunday we reported on Mr David Granger’s comments made in the course of his party’s ‘Public Interest’ programme. His perspective on the Guyanese political universe which was revealed in the process must have left many Guyanese feeling utterly drained. How can such an intelligent man, they may wonder, be so divorced from reality? After all, it takes a level of mental acrobatics to believe that last year a whole body of international observers of the standing and integrity of the late Owen Arthur of Barbados were either delusional, inexplicably in error, or were attempting to manipulate post-electoral events to ensure the PPP/C came to office. And if the latter, what possible interest could they have in engineering a winner, or a loser, for that matter?
But although what happened in the five months following the March 2nd poll has been regurgitated ad nauseam, still Mr Granger can sit there and say that he supported the action taken by Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield. It is a reference to the CEO’s report to Gecom on June 23rd when he disenfranchised 115,787 voters by invalidating almost 25% of the votes cast. He claimed his action was in consonance with the decision of the Appeal Court in the case brought by Eslyn David, which in a majority ruling said that the words “more votes are cast” in Article 177 (2) (b) of the Constitution should be interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast” in keeping with the definition of valid votes in the Recount Order.
The Appeal Court decision was subsequently overturned by the CCJ, which held that the court had acted outside its ambit when it pronounced on the constitutional meaning of “votes cast”, because the Constitution “required no refinement”. The article in question had “always said what it meant and meant what it said. There was no need for interpretation of that article or any other article of the Constitution,” CCJ President Justice Adrian Saunders had said.
When it came to the question of electoral reform, it was this case which probably prompted Mr Granger to say on the programme that, “Our electoral laws have to be seriously re-examined but I believe we live in a society where we are mature enough to conduct elections. I don’t think there is need for foreign intervention. The level of foreign influence in the period [March-August 2020] was phenomenal … the [Elections] Com-mission was brought under relentless influence from foreign agencies … the whole atmosphere was toxic.” In other words, any institution which made decisions tending to the preservation of democracy the APNU leader now seems to regard as unnecessary. The Court of Appeal, in his view, was competent to rule on internal electoral matters.
He had other things to say about electoral reform, including the structure and functioning of Gecom. It has been recognised for a long time that the elections body is in need of reform, although given how Mr Granger operated in relation to it, it would appear unlikely that he would find much basis for agreement with civil society bodies, let alone the PPP. We reported him as saying: “We have to look at a means of ensuring that the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission is not protracted. We also have to look at the appointment of the Commission. Is it prudent for each major party to nominate exactly three commissioners? Isn’t this a recipe for gridlock? How do we appoint a chair? I am of the view that the person should be a judge.”
His misinterpretation of the Constitution at one stage in that respect has not been forgotten, and neither, as we pointed out in our report, has the fact that the inordinate delay in the appointment of a Chair was a consequence of the fact that he rejected three lists of candidates submitted by the Leader of the Opposition in accordance with the Constitution, and then went ahead and unilaterally made an appointment to the post. That appointment was subsequently declared null and void by the CCJ.
The APNU Leader also reiterated what his party has been saying for a considerable time, namely, that there should be a house-to-house exercise for the compilation of a new National Register of Registrants.
Earlier this month the US Embassy announced that the International Republican Institute would be implementing a project here, supported by the Department of State, to strengthen the capacity of Gecom and the AG’s Chambers with respect to electoral processes. Civil society organisations would also be encouraged to promote electoral reform. The statement, followed by a second one from the AG this time, has produced criticism from Opposition Leader Joseph Harmon, as well as some civil society organisations. The PPP has been typically inflexible in its response.
How this will evolve remains to be seen; however, what can be said is that all sides want electoral reform at some level. As is clear from what Mr Granger has said, however, the problem is that the kind of playing field each side would like to see established is not the same. The lack of trust on both sides means that neither, perhaps – albeit to different degrees − truly believes that an impartial system can be created. This, after all, is why the Carter Center formula for the composition of Gecom which was intended as a temporary measure, was written into the Constitution. Certainly the kind of arrangements Mr Granger would like to see in place would appear to be designed potentially to favour his party.
Before we can make any progress on the electoral reform front, however, Messrs Granger and Harmon first need to acknowledge tacitly, at least, that the March 2nd election was free and fair. It does not require any public pronouncements, as President Ali is demanding; after all when the PPP challenged the 2015 results they did not make any public announcements about legitimacy when they dropped the challenge. But APNU does need to stop the pretence or abandon the illusion, as the case may be.
They need to do it for the sake of the party and their supporters. They have taken us back to an era before Desmond Hoyte made the first move to bring the PNC into the democratic fold. The problem had always been giving that party a vested interest in democracy, and in 2015 that appeared to have been achieved. Now we are back to square one, with many supporters taking the cue from their leaders in the belief that they have been cheated. It is not the system which has to be tweaked to secure an APNU+ victory; Congress Place has to be able to persuade voters to support it, as is the norm in other democracies − not an easy matter admittedly given their recent actions.
When Mr Granger says, as he did in the ‘Public Interest’ programme, that mechanisms need to be instituted to obviate “the type of mischief perpetrated on the people of Guyana last year,” it will be interpreted by many of his supporters as a statement of lack of trust in democracy. Our democratic structures are in need of reform, it is true, but that does not mean we did not have a democratic election last year. And while there inevitably will be quite intense debate on electoral reform, all the parties need to commit to genuine democratic processes. And for the sake of APNU’s longer-term survival as a bona fide democratic entity, Mr Granger needs to reflect that approach.
