Dear Editor,
It is rather curious to see that neither of the two major political parties is serious about reforming the Guyana Electoral Commission. In particular, they both seem in favour of the present structure of GECOM. Reporting on his meeting with the visiting US Undersecretary recently, the Vice President adamantly defended the present 3-3-1 structure (three commissioners nominated by the PPPC, three by APNU/AFC, plus the Chairman). The PNCR leader is calling for the present Chairman (Justice Claudette Singh, retired) to be removed and for the casting vote of the Chair to be abolished, but he seems comfortable with the 3-3-1 structure.
The need to change the composition of GECOM is a matter of commonsense. As we have seen for a number of years – highlighted in the 2020 election fiasco – the present structure is a recipe for deadlock and dysfunction. As the submission of the Electoral Reform Group (ERG) on the Government’s proposed amendments to the Representation of the People Act highlighted, the critical need for a fundamental restructuring of GECOM has been recommended by many observers and commentators over the years, including the Electoral Assistance Bureau and CARICOM, OAS and EU observers. The ERG submission urged that we need a GECOM “that works on a consensus basis, is authoritative and generates public confidence”.
One GECOM commissioner is reported as expressing the view that it is impossible to find six impartial, independent commissioners in this country. What she really means to say is that she does not think there are six independent persons who could be guaranteed to support her party’s positions. That is what impartiality means in this political landscape. When you get right down to it, the name of the game in this country is not fairness and transparency of elections, but State control at all costs within a context of political polarization. This view is also indicative of a contemptuous attitude held by politicians toward the Guyanese public. It suggests explicitly that all wisdom resides in party headquarters and that ordinary citizens out there – particularly those upstarts referring to themselves as ‘civil society organizations’ – cannot be trusted to advance the national interest. This attitude breeds the climate of political intolerance that is a major drawback to national progress in Guyana.
Which brings me back to the proposed RoPA amendments and the hope of genuine electoral reform. At the moment, the amendment process is being managed by the Government, led by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. Should not the process for proposing such amendments be managed by an impartial body, such as GECOM is supposed to be, rather than by the Government which is an interested party in the process? What use is GECOM if it cannot be expected to play a central role in managing an electoral reform process? An inescapable metric of success in electoral reform is the achievement of broad acceptance of proposals across the political spectrum. What this means is, with the best intentions, the Government’s proposals for electoral reform are dead in the water. They will inevitably and justifiably be seen by the society as an effort to enhance the partisan advantage of the ruling party. Inescapably, at this juncture in our history, we cannot go forward to political and governance stability without strong, central civil society input.
Sincerely,
Desmond Thomas
