APNU’s political theatre -- four examples for review
Written by Rickey Singh
Saturday, 24 March 2012 21:54
Source - Guyana Chronicle
President Donald Ramotar
SHEER political theatre! THAT’S what the main opposition, A Partnership for National Unity APNU), is currently offering in its ‘presentation’ to the Guyanese public on claimed irregularities at the last
November 28 general elections. But the political theatre is more insulting than amusing, and quite a pity when one considers the dangerous consequences that could result for this nation.
How serious should this coalition of parties—for which the Peoples National Congress Reform (PNCR) had submerged its own electoral identity to facilitate APNU’s registration as a contestant for the November 28 poll---be taken if it cannot be consistent about its claims on the outcome of the elections and the constitutional path to follow?
Now, therefore, as President Donald Ramotar is speaking with even more clarity about the likelihood of new election, while APNU continues to expose its inconsistencies before a very tolerant public, it may be useful to recall some of the political posturings that started shortly after the declaration of the official results which returned the incumbent PPP/C to state power but with a one-seat parliamentary majority for the combined APNU/Alliance for Change (AFC) in the 65-member National Assembly:
APNU chairman, David Granger
First, having deliberately misled supporters into thinking that it had “won” the elections---a claim which contributed to the sporadic street disturbances and clashes with the police in Georgetown—APNU was, on sober reflection, to adjust its rhetoric with a startling claim that there was “no MASSIVE (my emphasis) tampering of votes…”
It was perhaps its way of placating its more emotional supporters, as well as covering its own political skin, by signalling that there may have been some irregularities but nothing to affect the general and decisive verdict of the electorate.
In my column in this newspaper of January 21 this year, under the title “A POLL ‘BURDEN’FOR GUYANA’S OPPOSITION”, I had observed, in relation to what was said by the APNU chairman, David Granger, about “no massive tampering of votes”:
GECOM's Chairman, Dr Steve Surujbally
“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 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 leads.
“This”, I further noted, “would be quite a reasonable approach, given the vehemence with which Granger has been passionately demanding from GECOM verification of ‘statements of polls’ (SOPs). These, incidentally, were provided to all three contesting parties within a fortnight of the election results and long before APNU was ready to declare its lists of nominees for parliament…”
‘Verification’ politicking
Secondly, following the unprecedented development of APNU and the AFC combining their one-seat majority to take the offices of both Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Granger was to announce---as reported by “Demerara Waves” Online news agency, and quoted elsewhere---the party’s abandonment of pursuit of verification of the process of statements of poll.
The rationalisation offered by him then and reported, was, and I quote: “We do not expect that the verification will reverse the major outcomes of the 2011 elections, but we will still need to get it right…” Further, he said, “we do not contemplate that the results would be challenged in the court…(end of quote)”.
Of course, as I also noted then, 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 (as originally claimed) that there was no massive tampering of votes’…”
(3)Silence and expected inaction were to follow. Then came, a week ago, an APNU press conference with Granger and the party’s election agent, Joseph Harmon and other colleagues. This time around, some four months AFTER the November 28 elections and armed with the same Statements of Poll (SOPs) they had earlier stated could not “reverse the major outcomes” of declared results, APNU chose to introduce a new argument.
They were to claim that the “verification process”, as conducted by them, had revealed “no credible basis” for determining who should be the new President of Guyana.
Really? GECOM’s Chairman, Dr Steve Surujbally was not at all amused. He immediately announced that the Commission was taking a very serious view of APNU’s contention and demanded the proof of its claimed verification process that had resulted in its startling conclusion.
GECOM went further and reminded the Guyanese public that when it provided the parties, including APNU, with the requested SoPs, it was with the clear understanding that they would in turn submit in writing their findings for consideration action.
Media politicking
(4) This was not done. Instead, APNU chose the route of a press conference to achieve political objectives but with the promise that it would make known its findings later to GECOM. Later? It is already too late for any legitimate, legal basis to challenge the outcome of the election results, including the basis for choosing the Head of State.
The Guyana National Assembly Validity of Elections Act makes clear that “an election petition shall be presented within twenty eight (28) days after the results of the election out of which the matter in question on the petition arose are published in the Gazette under Section 99 of the Representation of the Peoples Act. The results of the November 28 were gazette on January 10, 2012.
It is, therefore, quite evident that the APNU chairman, Granger, its ‘election agent’, Harmon, and others who participated in the recent press conference to talk about lack of “credibility” in the basis for deciding the presidency, were simply engaging in customary media politicking for propaganda purposes, knowing that they NEVER had any serious intention to move to the courts with ANY petition pertaining to the conduct and outcome of the November 28, 2011 elections.
Forensic audit
Well, while as APNU’s election agent, Harmon, was to admit, “we are still to determine what course of action we are going to take…”, truth is that were they really SERIOUS about claimed irregularities resulting from the conduct of the November 28 poll then they could have, for a start, take up the initial offer made by President Donald Ramotar—without any fanfare---for all three of the contesting parties to agree for an independent forensic audit of the election results.
That offer was ignored. Why? It could have spared this nation from much of the painful political spectacle—in and out of parliament—to which Guyanese are being subjected; this political theatre in which APNU seems to have invested so much time and energy but which can hardly be expected to foster the “national unity” wording that completes its acronym.
APNU was unable, from the very beginning, to explain how it had arrived at the conclusion that there was “no massive tampering of votes”. Further, we are yet to learn why it did not take up the offer, or challenge by President Ramotar for a ‘forensic audit of the election results. Is it because its opposition partner, AFC, has shown NO interest in any such action and has been resisting political chatter about election irregularities?
Yet, in collaboration with the AFC, the APNU was quick to deny the governing PPPC even the post of Deputy Speaker of Parliament and later ignore the proportionality argument for composition of the primary selection committee of parliament.
All this and more from a coalition dominated by a party (the PNC) whose history in government is rooted in the political culture of electoral rigging. It has NEVER been successful in any of its court petitions on claimed electoral malpractices since its loss of state power in October 1992.
That was when, as today’s APNU well knows, electoral democracy was finally restored to Guyana and, from all objective assessments, continue to be maintained. Let those who argue otherwise, or prefer political theatre, READ the series of reports from regional and international observer missions from 1992 to 2011.