Dear Editor,
In my letter of November 29, 2022, published in Stabroek News, I had argued that Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall is not taking seriously the evidence indicating an unusually high voter turnout in the General Elections of March 2, 2020. He concludes his response on November 30, 2022, by stating “I am to regrettably inform that there is no ‘evidence presented’ capable of being taken seriously.” The data he was referring to indicated an unusually high voter turnout, which was supported independently by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) as outlined below.
Instead of considering my concerns, AG Nandlall prefers to question my credentials by stating that “I am not aware of the area of the Professor’s training” and by belittling me as “a goodly Professor embarking upon another harangue”. To address the first point made, I will reveal that I hold a PhD degree in Natural Sciences, which was awarded with the grade of “summa cum laude” by the University of Basel, Switzerland’s oldest university founded in 1460. I was trained at the Biocenter of the University of Basel and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, and I have held research positions at the University of California at San Francisco, Harvard Medical School, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich) and currently at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, where I am a tenured professor of molecular pathophysiology. I will refrain here from analyzing the academic credentials of the attorney general as I do not believe that this is necessary.
In fact, I have high respect for his expertise in the field of jurisprudence and he is an authority familiar with the laws of Republic of Guyana. In moving forward, I will cite in my response solely the data of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), an intergovernmental organization that works to support and strengthen democratic institutions and processes around the world. IDEA member states include Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland and Tunisia. Anybody including the attorney general can access IDEA’s primary data on the internet via the following link given here in parentheses (https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/121/40). The voting data compiled by IDEA (see table below) covers all general elections held in Guyana from 1964 to 2020. It relies on the public data provided by the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM) and demographic data drawn from different resources.
The important columns are the “Voter Turnout” (as calculated by GECOM) and the “VAP (Voting Age Population) Turnout” (as determined by IDEA). VAP Turnout is calculated by dividing the “Total Votes” by the “Voting Age Population”. According to the IDEA, the Voting Age Population (VAP) Turnout provides a more accurate indicator of political participation in general elections. The VAP figure is the estimated number of all those citizens over the legal voting age based on the most recent population census figure available, while the registration rate comprises the actual number of people on the voters’ roll. In some countries, such as Guyana, the voters’ roll is difficult to keep up to date due to deaths and immigration of electors, something which is a common problem facing electoral administrators not only in Guyana but around the world. Therefore, the VAP turnout reflects more accurately the true voter participation in elections.
Now let’s take a closer look at the table below. It is generally considered that Guyana’s first and free elections was held in 1992. I will therefore focus on the VAP turnouts from then onwards. The VAP turnout numbers ranged between 63.71% (in 1992) to 86.27% (2015). The average VAP turnout across the six general elections between 1992 and 2015 amounts to 74.02(±8.42) %.
By contrast, the VAP turnout in the 2020 general elections was 91.49%, which clearly stands out as being abnormally high on the basis of two criteria derived from the data of the previous six general elections held between 1992 and 2015, where:
1) the average VAP turnout was 74.02%; and
2) the standard variation was 8.42%.
It is therefore very clear that the VAP voter turnout of 91.49% for the 2020 general elections as determined by IDEA was an outlier given that it is 17.47% higher than the long-term average of 74.02%.
Therefore, I maintain my previously expressed position that the 2020 voter turnout was unusually high and I call for a thorough investigation of the issue by all bodies in Guyana with responsibilities to ensure that general elections are carried out free from illegal manipulations. The focus should not only be limited to the deplorable irregularities that happened during the tabulation of the votes in Region 4 in the wake of the 2020 General Elections but need to extended determine whether other irregularities might have occurred leading to a higher than usual voter turnout. Finally, all measures, such as the introduction of an electronic voting system with biometric voter identification, need to be taken now to ensure that in the next general elections to be held in 2025 will not be marred by similar irregularities. With regard to the attorney general, he needs to keep an open mind and should not resort to seeing any inconvenient facts brought to him through the lens of the bipartisan optics typical of the political discourse in Guyana. I therefore hope he sees now my contribution in a more constructive light.
Sincerely,
Andre Brandli, PhD
Professor
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich
