Any system could be manipulated by any government

Dear Editor,

I was intrigued by the report that government will be introducing draft legislation to reform the electoral system and impose hefty fines and jail terms for those found guilty of rigging. There were the usual cynical blogging responses, but one simple, sedate response by a Suresh Persaud shook me. He simply reminded us of what veteran politician, Llewelyn John said, that any system can be manipulated by any government. I knew Mr. John for decades, being a fellow West Banker. He was a likeable figure and did some legal work for me once. He departed this life earlier this year at the ripe age of 95. Except for a brief period of disenchantment with the PNC, during which he started his own political party, he was probably the longest serving member of the PNC and undoubtedly contributed more legal service to the party, especially regarding election litigations, than any other attorney.  As a legal confidante, he knew every dark secret of his party from the day it was born. He knew that the then government made itself above the law, even the highest law of the land – and could rope or rewrite the Constitution at whims and fancies, and certainly did.  He knew that the law only applied to the pawns, the small fries, the individuals at the lower end of any rigging system, not the institution of government, not the actual brain, architect, director, and justifier/whitewasher of any rigging. John knew the historical circumstances and the political psychology behind the statement, “any leader in power that loses an election is a fool and deserves to lose.” Does anyone remember that infamous smart-tongue reprimand given by a certain leader to the leader of a smaller West Indian Island on his losing an election? So, John knew what he meant when he said any system could be manipulated by any government.

In considering, say, just the past three or four years alone, we saw how incredulously true John’s statement is. Let us take, for instance, the blatant disregard of the Constitution when Patterson was made Chairman of GECOM. And, by the way, wasn’t Patterson’s MO a Deja vu of Sir Harry Bollers’? So, how can legislation prevent this high-handed disregard for the Constitution from recurring? Or how can any legislation force the present Chair, or any Chair for that matter, to act in a most transparent manner that is both free and fair, and perceived to be free of bias?  Secondly, what about blatant, brutal election crimes that are deliberately made to appear as petty mistakes, flimsy oversights, nonchalant errors, but in reality, are dangerously executed, pre-determined, pre-checkmate moves? Prosecuting such crimes is like shooting ducks blindfolded.  This is exactly the scenario surrounding the seemingly minor mistake which was designed to invalidate thousands of votes on the East Coast Demerara and hand the victory to the Coalition. A seemingly innocent email instruction given by Clairmont Mingo’s clerk, one Carlyn Duncan at the end of polling day, resulted in Lowenfield invalidating thousands of votes on the East Coast Demerara, and declaring the Coalition the winner of the election. But only just before declaring Granger the President, the PPP/C filed a suit, halting such declaration. Incidentally, it was the same venerable, then 94-year-old, most faithful attorney who once proudly represented his party and country at the British Guiana Independence talks in London, Senior Counsel, Mr. Llewellyn John who defended his party in this lawsuit – which they lost, thanks to the wisdom and jurisprudence of the learned, High Court Chief Justice Roxane George. Nevertheless, the damage was done. The country was plunged into a political and electoral deadlock for five months. Noted as the world’s worst electoral rigging attempt in history, the reputation of the country was sullied world-wide. Even to now, if there was any single action that gave the Coalition credence that they were cheated, and the present government was “install-ed”, it was this. But Carlyn Duncan was never and cannot be (successfully) prosecuted for this “minor oversight”. Nor Mingo, Lowenfield or anyone else. 

Thirdly, the scenario for rigging began indirectly when the Coalition started to foist a new math upon the world particularly that one where 34 is the majority of 65, and disgracefully endorsed by some in the Court. What is there in the draft to prevent any new conspiracy learning unravelling by the Coalition in future and infecting even our learned Justices? Fourthly, what legislation can be introduced to deal with discriminatory voter registration, padding voters’ lists with illegals, underaged, repetitive names? Finally, but not least of all, one must note the increasing use of ever-improving media technology, and the understandable inability of legislation to keep up with it. It is all okay when drones and iPhones are used to record and broadcast true facts as they are occurring, especially when brutal attempts by the government are/were made to prevent monitoring of such rigging activities  from happening. But there are evil people out there who use the technology and social media to invent and broadcast fake news. Take the case where one evil individual gets his accomplice who is conspicuously dressed so as to be easily identified, to nonchalantly stand in the queues of multiple polling stations while he records it and posts it in social media. All with the intention of falsely accusing the other side, inciting the public to violence, and probably fabricating evidence for future election petitions.

Fabricated and fake news are becoming the new norm and will increasingly become a threat to democracy, demonizing every instrument of the democratic process, particularly that of free and fair elections. The truth become lies and the fake becomes gospel. It is all neo-Goebbelism aka Trumpism or in the Guyana case, you can coin it, neo-Burn-hamism. Because of this new Seussian mix-up of lies and truths, I therefore see an increasing and more important role for the Court, and for continuously updating electoral legislations. Unfortunately, the latter would be difficult as legislations are a function of, and therefore lag (sometimes far) behind social and technological developments.

Sincerely,

Gokarran Sukhdeo