A poll ‘burden’ for Guyana’s Opposition
Written by Rickey Singh
Saturday, 21 January 2012 20:54
What, if any, scale of claimed ‘vote-tampering’
Analysis by Rickey Singh:
IN HIS haste to score a political point, the Opposition Leader in Guyana’s new Parliament, David Granger, may have taken on an unnecessary burden that could embarrass him and the party he leads amid increasing allusions/speculations of a snap general election within 15 months, if not earlier.
That ‘burden’ of Granger, the 65-year-old retired Brigadier of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF), who currently heads what is known as A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), relates to a statement last weekend and reported by the media.
He said that “there was no MASSIVE (my emphasis) tampering of votes” at the November 28, 2011 elections that had resulted in the incumbent PPP/C retaining the government under an executive presidency, but with loss of control, by one seat, of the 65-member National Assembly and consequently, a minority administration.
Well, to follow the expressed contention of the APNU’s chairman, he now seems to have a moral and political obligation to explain, not just for the benefit of his own supporters but the Guyanese electorate as a whole, what percentage, if any, of the officially declared results by the independent, bi-partisan Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) may have been tampered with, presumably to the disadvantage of the coalition of parties he heads.
This would be quite a reasonable approach, given the vehemence with which Granger has been passionately demanding from GECOM verification of ‘statements of poll (SOPs)’. These, incidentally, were provided to all three contesting parties -- the incumbent PPP; APNU and its unofficial ally,the Alliance For Change (AFC) -- within a fortnight of the election, and long before APNU was ready to declare its list of nominees for parliament.
GECOM, with varying changes in personnel, has been conducting national elections since its establishment for the 1992 -- the year when electoral democracy was finally restored in Guyana after 24 years of institutionalised and confirmed rigged elections under the People’s National Congress (now the overwhelming, dominant component in APNU).
GECOM’S Stance:
All those elections were declared “free and fair” by independent national, regional and international observer missions, as happened for last November’s poll with the PNC-dominated APNU as a first-time contestant.
GECOM’s chairman, Dr. Steve Surujbally, had explained to the media that while the Commission was under no constitutional obligation to deliver ‘statements of poll’ to any of the contesting parties, it had done so to avoid unnecessary allegations, and consistent with its own commitment to transparency in the electoral process.
The official results, which came within the third day of the election after previously recurred logistical problems in transportation of sealed ballot boxes from far-flung regions, were:
*The PPP--32 of the 65 seats with 166,340 votes, or 48.62 percent; APNU--26 seats based on 139,678 votes, or 40.83 percent; and the AFC—seven seats from 35,333 votes, or 10,33 percent.
When the 10th Guyana Parliament met last week for the swearing in of the new MPs and election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker, APNU and the AFC opted to depart from established conventions by ignoring a tripartite approach, favoured by the PPP, and chose to take both posts from within their own ranks. The AFC leader was chosen as Speaker, with APNU’s Deborah Backer as Deputy Speaker.
Then came last weekend’s media disclosure of the abandonment by APNU of its originally sought-after verification process of statements of poll. “We do not expect,” he said (as reported by the Online news agency, Demerarawaves) that the verification will reverse the major outcomes of the 2011 elections, but we will still need to get it right…” Further, Granger disclosed he did not “contemplate that the results would be challenged in the court.”
Of course, you have to be in possession of evidence of wrongdoing to initiate court proceedings. In the circumstances, therefore, the APNU chairman should enlighten the Guyanese electorate under what circumstances he and his party had discovered there was “no massive tampering of votes.”
Two views
Would it be correct to assume, for instance, that while APNU as well as its AFC ally knew that there were no “rigging” of the election results, it had, nevertheless, expediently opted to keep the “political pot” boiling with such an allegation that helped fuelled anti-PPP government street protests and sustain falsehood about being robbed of a “victory” it had promised supporters during the campaign?
Two views could perhaps be applied to the APNU chairman’s scuttling of earlier unsubstantiated claims of implicit electoral improprieties that were never presented for public assessment:
First, that he and his party apparently did not come up with EVIDENCE to support claims of vote-tampering that could have embarrassed the GEGOM and influence proceedings in a court to declare the results null and void.
Or, secondly, that upon sober reflection that favoured political maturity over irresponsible politicking to fuel disturbances that can hurt the national interest of Guyana, the APNU chairman settled for closure of a scenario of his own creation with the declaration of “no massive tampering of votes.”
Knowing Granger as I did, long before his active involvement in electioneering politics, I prefer to believe that political maturity triumphed sterile negative politics, and that even amid prevailing speculations of impending fiscal/economic problems from lack of government/opposition cooperation, it is better to hope than despair -- in Guyana’s interest.
Nevertheless, would the Guyanese electorate be enlightened by APNU about the difference between “no massive”, “small”, or whatever scale of vote-tampering may have occurred at the November 28 poll -- as originally alleged and voiced by its chairman, David Granger, the new Opposition Leader?
Source: Chronicle
Written by Rickey Singh
Saturday, 21 January 2012 20:54
What, if any, scale of claimed ‘vote-tampering’
Analysis by Rickey Singh:
IN HIS haste to score a political point, the Opposition Leader in Guyana’s new Parliament, David Granger, may have taken on an unnecessary burden that could embarrass him and the party he leads amid increasing allusions/speculations of a snap general election within 15 months, if not earlier.
That ‘burden’ of Granger, the 65-year-old retired Brigadier of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF), who currently heads what is known as A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), relates to a statement last weekend and reported by the media.
He said that “there was no MASSIVE (my emphasis) tampering of votes” at the November 28, 2011 elections that had resulted in the incumbent PPP/C retaining the government under an executive presidency, but with loss of control, by one seat, of the 65-member National Assembly and consequently, a minority administration.
Well, to follow the expressed contention of the APNU’s chairman, he now seems to have a moral and political obligation to explain, not just for the benefit of his own supporters but the Guyanese electorate as a whole, what percentage, if any, of the officially declared results by the independent, bi-partisan Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) may have been tampered with, presumably to the disadvantage of the coalition of parties he heads.
This would be quite a reasonable approach, given the vehemence with which Granger has been passionately demanding from GECOM verification of ‘statements of poll (SOPs)’. These, incidentally, were provided to all three contesting parties -- the incumbent PPP; APNU and its unofficial ally,the Alliance For Change (AFC) -- within a fortnight of the election, and long before APNU was ready to declare its list of nominees for parliament.
GECOM, with varying changes in personnel, has been conducting national elections since its establishment for the 1992 -- the year when electoral democracy was finally restored in Guyana after 24 years of institutionalised and confirmed rigged elections under the People’s National Congress (now the overwhelming, dominant component in APNU).
GECOM’S Stance:
All those elections were declared “free and fair” by independent national, regional and international observer missions, as happened for last November’s poll with the PNC-dominated APNU as a first-time contestant.
GECOM’s chairman, Dr. Steve Surujbally, had explained to the media that while the Commission was under no constitutional obligation to deliver ‘statements of poll’ to any of the contesting parties, it had done so to avoid unnecessary allegations, and consistent with its own commitment to transparency in the electoral process.
The official results, which came within the third day of the election after previously recurred logistical problems in transportation of sealed ballot boxes from far-flung regions, were:
*The PPP--32 of the 65 seats with 166,340 votes, or 48.62 percent; APNU--26 seats based on 139,678 votes, or 40.83 percent; and the AFC—seven seats from 35,333 votes, or 10,33 percent.
When the 10th Guyana Parliament met last week for the swearing in of the new MPs and election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker, APNU and the AFC opted to depart from established conventions by ignoring a tripartite approach, favoured by the PPP, and chose to take both posts from within their own ranks. The AFC leader was chosen as Speaker, with APNU’s Deborah Backer as Deputy Speaker.
Then came last weekend’s media disclosure of the abandonment by APNU of its originally sought-after verification process of statements of poll. “We do not expect,” he said (as reported by the Online news agency, Demerarawaves) that the verification will reverse the major outcomes of the 2011 elections, but we will still need to get it right…” Further, Granger disclosed he did not “contemplate that the results would be challenged in the court.”
Of course, you have to be in possession of evidence of wrongdoing to initiate court proceedings. In the circumstances, therefore, the APNU chairman should enlighten the Guyanese electorate under what circumstances he and his party had discovered there was “no massive tampering of votes.”
Two views
Would it be correct to assume, for instance, that while APNU as well as its AFC ally knew that there were no “rigging” of the election results, it had, nevertheless, expediently opted to keep the “political pot” boiling with such an allegation that helped fuelled anti-PPP government street protests and sustain falsehood about being robbed of a “victory” it had promised supporters during the campaign?
Two views could perhaps be applied to the APNU chairman’s scuttling of earlier unsubstantiated claims of implicit electoral improprieties that were never presented for public assessment:
First, that he and his party apparently did not come up with EVIDENCE to support claims of vote-tampering that could have embarrassed the GEGOM and influence proceedings in a court to declare the results null and void.
Or, secondly, that upon sober reflection that favoured political maturity over irresponsible politicking to fuel disturbances that can hurt the national interest of Guyana, the APNU chairman settled for closure of a scenario of his own creation with the declaration of “no massive tampering of votes.”
Knowing Granger as I did, long before his active involvement in electioneering politics, I prefer to believe that political maturity triumphed sterile negative politics, and that even amid prevailing speculations of impending fiscal/economic problems from lack of government/opposition cooperation, it is better to hope than despair -- in Guyana’s interest.
Nevertheless, would the Guyanese electorate be enlightened by APNU about the difference between “no massive”, “small”, or whatever scale of vote-tampering may have occurred at the November 28 poll -- as originally alleged and voiced by its chairman, David Granger, the new Opposition Leader?
Source: Chronicle
