APNU SHOULD SIGN A LIMITED CODE OF CONDUCT
October 21, 2011 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Source - Kaieteur News
APNU is not inclined to sign the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) code of conduct. The grouping has no objection to what the code contains, but rather to what is missing from it.
The attempt by GECOM to have a code of conduct signed is an important development in Guyana’s political history, but it was always going to be difficult to reach agreement on any code in Guyana, given the fact that political parties see such things as an opportunity to force political concessions on other issues.
The PPP is disappointed that APNU has not signed the code of conduct and it is milking political capital out of APNU’s failure to sign. The defacing of the PPP’s billboards provides it with an opportunity to call into question APNU’s commitment to peaceful polls and the PPP is quick to make reference to APNU’s non-signing of the code of conduct.
APNU on the other hand feels that GECOM’s code of conduct does not address issues such as campaign financing and access of the opposition parties to the state-owned media. In effect, what APNU is suggesting is that GECOM’s code of conduct does not go far enough and needs to address these concerns.
APNU, of course, was the one that revealed that it was attempting to raise some US$6M. This immediately raised eyebrows. The target of 1.2 billion Guyana dollars was unrealistic and caused questions to be asked as to how APNU hoped to raise such an astronomical sum.
But the issue that APNU is perhaps more concerned with is the use of state resources by the ruling party. Instead of referring to the broader issue of campaign financing, APNU could have attempted to have included a specific clause in the code of conduct dealing specifically with the use of state resources, instead of the broader issue of campaign financing.
None of the political parties in Guyana are going to easily agree to a detailed code to govern campaign financing. None of them would wish to make known the sources of their campaign financing and how the funds were spent.
And when it comes to campaign financing, it is not just state funding that is the problem.
Internationally, there are concerns about the influence of large personal and corporate donations to political parties and candidates, and the effect of these donations on the democratic process. So if APNU wants campaign financing to be brought to the bargaining table, it has to also agree to accept restraints on large private donations to political campaigns, including donations from foreign governments. Does APNU want to go down this road?
APNU also has to accept the fact that codes of conduct are signed between political parties, and not between parties and governments.
Neither GECOM as a facilitator nor the ruling party can bind the government to any agreement between political parties. As such, when it comes to access to the state-owned media, this is an issue that has to be negotiated outside of the framework of GECOM. The ruling party cannot commit to providing access for the opposition to the state-owned media and it is unreasonable for APNU to try to have this being part of GECOM’s code.
Despite this, there is nothing to prevent APNU from committing to a code dealing with the way in which parties conduct themselves during the elections. In light of what is happening with the billboards and the accusations about heckling at political meetings, it is rather unfortunate that a basic code of conduct agreeing to certain rules of peaceful conduct could not have been signed by the parties.
It may not be too late for this to happen and guidance may be sought from a simple code of conduct promoted by the Elections Commission of India last year.
That model code urges party to desist from activities that could aggravate existing differences or cause hatred and tension between religions and communities. It also urged parties to stay away from personally attacking individuals. There is also a provision for political parties to urge their supporters to desist from creating obstructions in or to break up political meetings of other political parties.
APNU, however, is not seemingly interested in a limited code of conduct that addresses the above issues. It sees the code of conduct as a bargaining chip through which it can insist on larger political reforms.
But how realistic are APNU’s demands? The state-owned electronic media offered five minutes per week to APNU. The grouping could have countered with a demand for two three-minute segments with repeats. This would have been a reasonable proposal. But APNU has simply adopted the position that what is offered is an insult. APNU, in fact, by adopting such an intractable position, has closed the door on access to the state-owned media.
And when it comes to campaign financing, APNU knows that what is needed to enforce this is legislation, and it also knows that not only is parliament in recess, but that it will take from now to eternity for any agreement to be reached between the parties.
And in the absence of a code of conduct signed by APNU, the PPP is going to milk political capital out of the destruction of its billboards and disturbances at political meetings.
October 21, 2011 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Source - Kaieteur News
APNU is not inclined to sign the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) code of conduct. The grouping has no objection to what the code contains, but rather to what is missing from it.
The attempt by GECOM to have a code of conduct signed is an important development in Guyana’s political history, but it was always going to be difficult to reach agreement on any code in Guyana, given the fact that political parties see such things as an opportunity to force political concessions on other issues.
The PPP is disappointed that APNU has not signed the code of conduct and it is milking political capital out of APNU’s failure to sign. The defacing of the PPP’s billboards provides it with an opportunity to call into question APNU’s commitment to peaceful polls and the PPP is quick to make reference to APNU’s non-signing of the code of conduct.
APNU on the other hand feels that GECOM’s code of conduct does not address issues such as campaign financing and access of the opposition parties to the state-owned media. In effect, what APNU is suggesting is that GECOM’s code of conduct does not go far enough and needs to address these concerns.
APNU, of course, was the one that revealed that it was attempting to raise some US$6M. This immediately raised eyebrows. The target of 1.2 billion Guyana dollars was unrealistic and caused questions to be asked as to how APNU hoped to raise such an astronomical sum.
But the issue that APNU is perhaps more concerned with is the use of state resources by the ruling party. Instead of referring to the broader issue of campaign financing, APNU could have attempted to have included a specific clause in the code of conduct dealing specifically with the use of state resources, instead of the broader issue of campaign financing.
None of the political parties in Guyana are going to easily agree to a detailed code to govern campaign financing. None of them would wish to make known the sources of their campaign financing and how the funds were spent.
And when it comes to campaign financing, it is not just state funding that is the problem.
Internationally, there are concerns about the influence of large personal and corporate donations to political parties and candidates, and the effect of these donations on the democratic process. So if APNU wants campaign financing to be brought to the bargaining table, it has to also agree to accept restraints on large private donations to political campaigns, including donations from foreign governments. Does APNU want to go down this road?
APNU also has to accept the fact that codes of conduct are signed between political parties, and not between parties and governments.
Neither GECOM as a facilitator nor the ruling party can bind the government to any agreement between political parties. As such, when it comes to access to the state-owned media, this is an issue that has to be negotiated outside of the framework of GECOM. The ruling party cannot commit to providing access for the opposition to the state-owned media and it is unreasonable for APNU to try to have this being part of GECOM’s code.
Despite this, there is nothing to prevent APNU from committing to a code dealing with the way in which parties conduct themselves during the elections. In light of what is happening with the billboards and the accusations about heckling at political meetings, it is rather unfortunate that a basic code of conduct agreeing to certain rules of peaceful conduct could not have been signed by the parties.
It may not be too late for this to happen and guidance may be sought from a simple code of conduct promoted by the Elections Commission of India last year.
That model code urges party to desist from activities that could aggravate existing differences or cause hatred and tension between religions and communities. It also urged parties to stay away from personally attacking individuals. There is also a provision for political parties to urge their supporters to desist from creating obstructions in or to break up political meetings of other political parties.
APNU, however, is not seemingly interested in a limited code of conduct that addresses the above issues. It sees the code of conduct as a bargaining chip through which it can insist on larger political reforms.
But how realistic are APNU’s demands? The state-owned electronic media offered five minutes per week to APNU. The grouping could have countered with a demand for two three-minute segments with repeats. This would have been a reasonable proposal. But APNU has simply adopted the position that what is offered is an insult. APNU, in fact, by adopting such an intractable position, has closed the door on access to the state-owned media.
And when it comes to campaign financing, APNU knows that what is needed to enforce this is legislation, and it also knows that not only is parliament in recess, but that it will take from now to eternity for any agreement to be reached between the parties.
And in the absence of a code of conduct signed by APNU, the PPP is going to milk political capital out of the destruction of its billboards and disturbances at political meetings.