MY TURN GUYANA
By Moses V. Nagamootoo
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM
Guyana has kicked the electoral and constitutional reform can down the road long enough.
Charmed by power, governments interchangeably led by both the PPP and the PNC, our two major parties, have scoffed at meaningful political reforms. These didn’t go deep enough after the 1992 elections, and ground almost to a dead halt after 2015.
It is as simple as this: either Guyana peacefully undertakes urgent reforms, or invites social upheavals in a country that is racially polarized and where, with hefty windfalls in petro-dollars, the political stakes are at an all-time high.
In a different context Marxist radical Rosa Luxemburg in her essay titled “Reform or Revolution” showed how inherent contradictions could lead to social explosions, to revolution.
The irreconcilable contradiction in Guyana is that our laws and electoral system cannot deliver outcomes that are untainted by flaws and fraud; and cannot realise the primary goal of our racially-divided nation for inclusive governance.
FEAR AND INSECURITY
In the meantime, the cauldron of racial fear and insecurity is reaching boiling point after every national election when regional and international observers would make “recommendations” for reforms.
The European Union Election Observer Mission (EU EOM) is the latest to submit several recommendations to boost transparent and credible elections in this former British colony of just over 750,000 inhabitants.
In its final report on the March 2, 2020 elections, the Mission noted dominance by what it described as “two largely ethnicity-based political parties”, representing African and Indian sections of the population. It noted also the close contest in 2011 and 2015 which ensured “tight outcomes leading to one-seat majorities”. The outcome in 2020 is no different, but far more dangerous.
The Mission reported that in the last elections there were 660,998 voters. This, it said, was “well above the estimated resident adult population”.
No explanation could possibly white-wash the outcome of an election in which a bloated list of such enormity was used. The voters list was padded with names of Guyanese who had migrated, or had died since their registration.
That alone could constitute material irregularity to vitiate the results of elections where phantoms were deemed eligible to vote.
DYSFUNCTIONAL COMMISSION
The Mission also indicted as “dysfunctional” the Elections Commission, which comprises political party representatives, and is unable to exercise adequate control over its staff.
Mention was made of elections laws and regulations that are scattered all over the place like paddy in a field, which accounts for legal uncertainty regarding the electoral processes. In this regard, one recalls the confusion after a recount over what ballots could be considered “valid votes”.
Again, as in all previous elections, concerns were raised over the absence of laws to limit campaign financing, the abuse of state media and other government resources for partisan activities, and to guarantee greater women participation in decision-making.
BUILD NEW BRIDGES
I find it surprising that the European Mission while advocating for protection of on-line data, did not give any attention to the opposition-funded activities of foreign agencies such as Mercury and, before it, Cambridge Analytica, in the invasion of privacy and harvesting of the personal data of Guyanese electors.
But overall, EU COM has given us much to ponder in fixing our broken electoral system, and has reinforced the previous recommendations by the Carter Center, which has always encouraged steps to bring about inclusive governance. It has supported constitutional reform and the promotion of genuine dialogue to build new bridges for unity in Guyana.
We cannot wait until the next election cycle to take these recommendations on board. Now is the time to hammer out a menu of reforms through inter-party dialogue.
March 20, 2021
(The author, a journalist and attorney, is the former Prime Minister of Guyana).