Liberal democracies depend, in the words of one reviewer, on a ‘collective trust in facts.’ While that collective trust is under assault all over the Western world, more particularly in the United States, with some exceptions it has never really existed in this country at all. There have always been two sets of ‘facts’, one generated by the PNC in its various incarnations, and the other by the PPP. Since only one side perceives itself as promoting the ‘truth’, the other side by definition must inevitably be ‘lying’, especially when political differences are at issue. This is not to say that one or the other side does not often have a correct grasp of some of the facts, if not most; it is simply to observe that this will often not be acknowledged by the opposing party which will postulate its own contradictory ‘truth’.
And it is not just the politicians who operate this way, but their supporters too. As far as they are concerned, the genuine facts are promulgated by whichever side they back; they look no further. As a consequence there is no such thing in the eyes of politicians and their backers as an impartial critic or a neutral commentator.
When an ‘objective’ judgement is required, recourse is usually had to the courts, but here again, both parties in government have sought to have their own candidates appointed as judges on the assumption that these will favour them when cases come before them. In other words, objectivity is not what they seek, but an official endorsement of their own ‘truth’. Having said that, justices will often exercise their independent judgement, as the coalition government found out to its cost in the recent election cases in the High and Appeal Courts. That, of course, has not stopped them, since Mr Clairmont Mingo simply ignored the High Court’s ruling and APNU+AFC still clings to his fabricated tabulation.
Where elections are concerned foreign observers above all others are the arbiters of what constitute objective facts, which is why they are so unpopular with autocrats. It is they who have confirmed the credibility of results in this country going back to 1992. We had an impressive array of them here on March 2nd, possibly because President Granger, who is now confirming his status as an unreconstructed authoritarian, did not expect to lose the poll. After it was clear to him that he had, the process by which a contrary set of facts could be created got underway.
Since all the overseas observers embarrassingly for the coalition were in agreement on the subject of the election and how the attempted fraud had been perpetrated, they had to be undermined. (No such compunction was felt in relation to local observers, because as already noted, local people are not perceived as independent; they belong to one side or the other, depending on what they are saying at any given point in time.)
The first attempt was made by Foreign Minister Karen Cummings, who improperly suggested the observers could lose their accreditation. Inevitably, that backfired, and thereafter letters in the press argued that they were interfering in Guyana’s internal affairs, an allegation which became more marked in relation to the Western heads of mission here and their host governments, who had endorsed the observers’ reports. This was particularly pronounced after these nations threatened sanctions if a president was sworn in on the basis of flawed results.
Then, of course, there was the matter of Mr Bruce Golding, who as head of the OAS mission gave a damming report to the members of that organization about the fraud in Region Four. Mr Joseph Harmon, in his customarily crude way, did not address the substantive issues in the report; Guyana-style he simply wrote off Mr Golding as a friend of Mr Jagdeo, thereby telling party supporters that ipso facto the mission head was not being truthful about events. That the PPP’s account of events and tally of the SoPs in its possession correspond for the most part to the facts, will mean nothing to a PNC constituent who has been told otherwise by his or her leaders.
The coalition is claiming there is a disputed election. There is no disputed election. What we have is a poll whose outcome would be unquestionable if the Region Four votes were tabulated in a straightforward way according to the law. And this could have been done not more than two or three days after the poll had the process not been artificially interrupted.
But now a completely contrived set of facts has been assembled that apart from belonging in a fantasy world lacks even internal coherence or consistency. There is no genuine dispute about the evidence in support of the facts, since the evidence is already clear, and APNU+AFC declines to back up its claims of having won by refusing to produce the SoPs in its own possession, among other things which could lend credence to its claims. The least that can be said is that this must be the most complicated assemblage of fake facts in the history of elections anywhere.
Other bodies have been pressed into service in the construction of this replacement data, although not all of them, the courts being a case in point, have proved as compliant as the coalition would like. It says a great deal for the integrity of some of our justices. Nevertheless, in spinning out this imaginary story delay was essential, and the Covid-19 Task Force has been very helpful in this regard, since with Mr Harmon as its head – and even before − it has operated in a plainly political capacity rather than a health one. It has used the coronavirus as the excuse to limit the hours of those engaged in the recount; to restrict the number of workstations initially to ten, then under pressure to allow two more; and with the 25-day deadline almost reached, refusing permission for a further two.
Significantly, Covid-19 is also cited as a main reason for the denial of a permit to observers from the Carter Center to watch the recount, although workers for ExxonMobil have been allowed to fly in and out. Restricting the scrutiny of objective eyes is clearly the aim here.
But at the centre of it all sits Gecom, with various members of the Secretariat under Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield playing a critical role in fashioning fantasy facts and delaying processes in order to set them up. At the apex is the commission itself, with three commissioners allied to the coalition, and three to the opposition. The one holding the balance of power, therefore, is Chair Claudette Singh, who is the last person with the potential in the system to come down on the side of the real facts. Unfortunately, her record in this regard has not been above reproach.
We are now into what an exhausted population hopes is the final phase of the recount, and with the original 25-day timeline expiring on May 30th the commission on Friday decided to extend the deadline to June 13th. In addition the Chair commendably lent her casting vote to allow for a maximum of three days after the receipt of a final report from the CEO for the declaration of a result.
Theoretically, therefore, we could see an end to the election saga on June 16th. However, Justice Singh has a few votes yet to go before that could be regarded as any kind of certainty, more especially as there are lacunae in the amended order which could facilitate further delays. One of these is the fact that no time limit is given for Gecom to consider the CEO’s first report on the basis of which it decides whether to ask him to draw up the final one, and similarly no time limit is given on how long it should take him to present the final report. Given what has happened, none of this sounds very promising.
There had been considerable disagreement the day before about the length of time which should be devoted to consideration of the observation reports, most of which consist of innumerable allegations from the coalition about irregularities during the vote. It is on these which that party is hinging its latest story of a fraudulent election which it says was perpetrated by the PPP.
On Friday Commissioner Mr Vincent Alexander told the media that the commission had taken steps to investigate at least some of the claims made by the coalition. However, it has been denied by the opposition that any such decision has been taken at the commission level, and the secretariat should not be doing so without the former’s authorisation. The PPP/C’s Mr Anil Nandlall has now called on Justice Singh to publicly state her position on an ‘investigation’ into the allegations made by the coalition.
There are two issues: one is the validity of supposed ‘irregularities’ raised by APNU+AFC, and the other is whether Gecom should be investigating them. As it is the first comes under the rubric of fake facts, and the second relates to the matter of whether under the Order or the law the commission can conduct investigations let alone nullify an election. Expert legal opinion is that it can’t. What the Chair has to say and how she may later use her vote will be critical.
At the moment, while everyone hopes that this endless process will have an end and that President Granger will accept the result of the recount, rational citizens will feel justifiably nervous that this counter-factual story may still have some way to run.