“Let us Cooperate” & Fix These Things Before the Next Elections

So the elections are over and the verdict is in: per His Excellency, ‘All of the electoral observation bodies said elections were free and fair. So what is the issue?’ The issue, Mr. President, is that the observers said other things as well, just as they did after the 2020 elections and as they will elaborate in their final Reports in the coming weeks. An election is a process: the preparation by GECOM, the political campaigns, polling day, counting and tabulation, declaration and swearing-in; in other words, not because no “trouble” was caused means that everything was “honkey-dorey”!

So, in the spirit of the national song quoted in the title above, here are a few suggestions that can be achieved during the next election cycle – five years is more than enough – provided the necessary political will is there (what the late US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright might likely have termed “cojones”).

1. Clean up the voters list (the Official List of Electors): it should be obvious to all and sundry that an electoral roll of 757,690 for a population the size of which is often quoted in a similar number, cannot be realistically used as a guide for the elections process on polling day. We are told that of those listed, 438,345 voted.
   It therefore means that a start can be made from now, using the 319,345 “remainder” votes, to determine who should be removed from the list – deceased, emigrants, the disinterested/otherwise occupied on polling day. Regarding those dearly departed souls, no one can be buried in this country without a Death Certificate issued by the GRO. That government agency simply has to resume its duty of delivering copies of death certificates on a regular (monthly, quarterly) basis to GECOM so that the electoral roll can be continuously updated, much like continuous registration, whereby new voters are added.
   Regarding the emigrants, the Hon. Chief Justice had in effect ruled that residence in Guyana is not a requirement for voting, so no one should be removed from the electoral list for being out of the jurisdiction for extended period(s). To this I respectfully wish to add a caveat: not unlike the cash grants, or access to a house lot, why should we continue to reserve a place on our electoral roll for persons many of whom have put Guyana in their rearview mirror for decades now? For many of them, the political decisions made here will have little or no direct effect on their lives, they pay no taxes here, and either bad-talk Guyana or otherwise don’t give a damn about, or have little regard for existential issues of importance to Guyana – sea-level rise, the threat of an off-shore oil spill, the ICJ case and President Maduro’s illegal designs on our dear land of 83,000 square miles.
   To those who say these persons in “farrin” are still Guyanese, I say the following: enabling legislation should be expeditiously enacted for GECOM to review the results after every election cycle and identify those persons who have not voted over successive periods of ten years past, that is, they were no-shows for two elections. Drawing on the analogy from Old Age Pensions, ever so often our retirees have to sign a Life Certificate attesting that they are alive and eligible for said pension. Similarly, GECOM can use the various public mediums and ask these persistent election-day absentees to declare in writing to GECOM or our overseas Missions whether they want to remain on the voters’ list. After a period of say, three months, if there is no response, GECOM could conditionally remove the persons’ names; provision could be made, with respect to the court’s ruling, for the decision to be reversed if the persons were to subsequently make such a request. Why should the accuracy of our electoral process be impeded by these persons, some of whom may even have taken up a new “domicile” where they are currently residing, with no abiding or immediate interest in returning here?
   And for those Guyanese who may be here but often find it difficult or inconvenient to get to the polling station on election day, they will have to remain on the list, once they declare themselves so. It is reasonable to conclude however that the continuous removal of deceased persons and the removal of emigrants every five years after an election cycle in the manner proposed above, would go a far way to reducing the “bloat” in the voters’ list. This would consequently reduce the possibility of election day shenanigans like “jumbie” voting and voter impersonation of Guyanese residing abroad.
2. Publish the 2022 population census: These numbers would have a direct bearing on the accuracy of the list of those persons old enough to vote. AI tells us that the census is “currently undergoing data analysis” and results were due in 2024/25! Usually, whether it is with your spouse, children or a superior, you withhold information for two reasons, either to surprise them or otherwise if the information is bad. The surprise element is not relevant here so, just like how US Congressman Ro Khanna said with regards to the Jeffrey Epstein files, if there’s nothing in there, then why not release them!? Could it possibly be that the census numbers will give an accurate picture of how the demographic has shifted among the electorate over the years, pointing inter alia to the consequential importance of the indigenous vote and the cross-over factor? Newsflash: this is already known, but just not in real terms; to the extent that the government is privy to the actual results, this amounts to an unfair advantage over its political opponents, whether it is for the purpose of national development planning, or for election campaigning.
3. Introduce biometrics: I had recently highlighted VP Jagdeo some years ago singing the praises of biometrics; fast forward to 2024/25, it is the opposition which was now calling for biometrics, with the VP’s party inexplicably resisting. I had seen similar technology at work since 1999 while observing the elections in South Africa where the “zip zip” voter card reader was employed. This technology has since been upgraded to newer voter management devices: as all voter records are on a central database, registration can be done electronically in any district (no one has to be turned away from a registration center). When the voter eventually arrives on polling day in the correct district to vote, the information can then be easily retrieved, as all polling stations would have access to the same central database. This biometric data capture can also help with issues like changes of address. How could any political party claiming to be interested in the integrity of the vote not be favourably disposed to the introduction of this biometric technology?
4. Voting by Commonwealth nationals other than Guyanese: Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution provides that a Commonwealth citizen who is both ‘domiciled and resident in Guyana’ and is resident for one year, can vote. The provision had two separate legal requirements, domicile and residence for a year. GECOM cannot simply wish away the requirement of domicile and only focus on the residency, as appears to have been the case on this occasion. I am sure that with the correct advice from the Attorney General’s Chambers, or when a Legal Officer is recruited by GECOM, whichever is the sooner, this matter can be easily rectified. This would prevent voting in future elections by short-term transient workers who have no interest nor stake in the development of Guyana as their temporary place of residence. Besides, a few bus loads of truck drivers and medical students ought not to be able to swing an election!
5. Voting by prisoners: This matter had been commented on previously by the Carter Center Observer Team but its recommendation was not acted upon. The said Article 159 provides that a person can vote ‘if…he or she is of the age of eighteen years or upwards’. The only restriction regarding the operation of the law is on a person who ‘has been convicted by a court of any offence connected with elections’. In other words, no legislative amendment is needed to permit prisoners to vote, just administrative action by GECOM.
6. For Guyana’s relatively small prison population (2000-odd) GECOM should put arrangements in place to respect the Constitution and cause polling divisions to be created for the various locations where prisoners are incarcerated. Prisoners can vote in advance, either on the same day with the disciplined services or, if some GPF ranks might be needed to maintain order when the prisoners are voting, on an alternative day before the stipulated polling day. No political party should object to this: prisoners do not lose the right to vote upon incarceration, and besides, two thousand prisoners ought not to be able to swing an election!
7. Voting by workers in the extractive industries: while Guyana is touted as the fastest growing economy in the world because of our performance in the oil sector, as well as gold and other minerals, it is unconscionable that the hard-working Guyanese who contribute daily to this success cannot vote if they are on shift offshore or deep in the interior mining pits. Again, with proper planning, just like with the prison population, logistical and other arrangements can be put in place for these workers to vote offshore on the FPSOs or in the interior mining sites. These workers were saved from disenfranchisement this time around because of the belated declaration of a public holiday; however GECOM got “Five More Years Pun Dem” to enable these categories of voters.
8. Freedom of association: I had previously written that the freedom of association provision of the Constitution (Article 147) includes the freedom ‘to associate with other persons and in particular to form or belong to political parties’. The action taken recently by some banks, the banking association and some domestic air carriers as regards the denial of service to members/associates of the WIN party was unconstitutional: the internal policy of any business entity cannot be given prominence over a provision in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. It is the government’s duty to be the guardian of the rights of the people; consequently, it should not necessitate litigation to vindicate such a right.
9. Access to state media: An OAS study had previously proposed that access to the state media be regulated on an equitable basis, for instance on a 50/50 or 2/3-1/3 ratio among the governing and opposition party(ies), and with more balance in news items and advertisements. This would be in relation to NCN television and the Guyana Chronicle, as the DPI is, like other information units in countries such as The Bahamas, Barbados or Jamaica, an arm of the government. While such an arrangement would have to be the subject of consultation and overseen by a broadcast authority, anything would be better than the one-sided arrangement which has prevailed over the years, favouring whichever party is in government at the time.

Recommendations of Election Observer Missions (EOMs): Every five years, EOMs are invited here and come and pronounce on the election, giving the country a passing grade. They invariably make recommendations – the CARICOM EOM did so about the voters’ list in 2020, and the Carter Center about the right of prisoners voting – but these were not acted upon. It is true, as has been said by the Heads of some of the EOMs, that the government is sovereign when it comes to accepting such recommendations; but those emanating from the EOMs so far from this year’s election (e.g. the advantage of incumbency and use of state resources) are both pointed and far-reaching. These recommendations go more towards the overall process, rather than the limited issue of calm and order during the polling and counting of ballots.

I believe the recommendations of the EOMs over the years are genuinely intended to enhance the overall electoral process and democratic veneer with which the particular government of the day, be it APNU/AFC or PPP/C, shrouds itself. No doubt the victorious party can bask in the international aura of acceptance after having an election certified as “free and fair”. However, if recommendations go unheeded after successive election cycles, is it not time for the parent organisations to make a subsequent invitation to observe elections here conditional on checking the report card on the implementation of recommendations in the previous EOM reports? Do the local observer missions not see the need for systemic changes in the overall electoral process as stated above, or were they blinded by the oncoming bright lights of the incumbent’s glitzy campaign?

Before y’all come fuh me, let me plead that if what I’ve written here is interpreted as criticism, I pray that the word “constructive” be appended to that description. In the tradition of selfless service that my parents Neville Snr and Mary raised my siblings and I, this article is intended to be of benefit to all of Guyana. The proposals that I make put people over party, so that the nation would win. They require a whole of society approach: government (in particular the AG’s Chambers), opposition parties, GECOM, private sector, civil society, religious leaders, the legal profession, academia, with healthy doses of consultation along the way.

The national song that is referenced in the title contains a catchy refrain, which I urge upon the body politic of this great land of ours – if I could, I would even prevail upon Secretary Albright: “Can we do it, Yes We Can!”