Dear Editor,
GECOM continues to be on the agenda of letter writers, including its Commissioners. One of the points which has been made in those letters is about the partisan nature of the composition and conduct of the work, of the Commission.

Commissioner Robeson Benn, in his writings, stresses that the provisions of the Constitution intended that the Commission should be bi-partisan. Benn states: “I have several times pointed out to Dr. Surujbally that the Commission was bi-partisan in nature, as a result of the tedious and deliberate formulation of the “Carter Formula” which was one of the key adoptions in constitutional reform which allowed for a more democratic constitution and freer and fairer election in 1992.”(sic). He further stated that “the nominated commissioners of GECOM have the crucial role of bringing the perspectives, viewpoints and experiences of their nominee, the nominee’s supporters, and those of the wider society …for consideration, deliberation and resolution to the table at GECOM.”

GHK Lall in his writings recognises the goodness of a non-partisan commission but bemoans the fact that our polity and society are steep in partisanship and not ready or disposed to the non-partisan approach. Lall may well be right. Benn’s partial reference to the constitutional provisions for the establishment of the Commission may well reflect his preference for a bi-partisan commission and a distortion of the intent of the Carter Formula. To wit, his advocacy for the Commission to actively pursue its mandate does not pay any attention to the possibility of the Commissioners conducting themselves in a non-partisan manner, given that there is a provision of the Constitution which he, Benn, ignores, which can facilitate non-partisan behaviour, on the part of the Commissioners.

That provision clearly stipulates that the concerned parties merely nominate commissioners who are then granted indefinite appointments/ tenure by the President. There is absolutely no provision for the nominees to be removed by the party which nominated them. Therein lies the scope for commissioners to be non-partisan. Their only legal obligation is to uphold the Constitution and there is no provision for their removal by the party from whence they came. They are free to be guided by their own deliberate judgement and in so doing can be non-partisan.

Back to reality, over my 10 years as a Commissioner, no PNCR commissioner has ever demitted office, except for those who demitted by virtue of death. Conversely, during that period four PPP/C nominated commissioners have demitted office, ostensibly, by way of resignation. One demitted immediately after the 2011 fiasco, when Boodhoo’s attempted fraud was detected and stopped in its tracks. Another demitted, immediately, after the 2015 elections. Those elections were also the subject of attempted fraud and the PPP/C are still contesting those results. One demitted, clearly, because of ill health and has since died. The other demitted between 2011 and 2015 after serving for a short lived period.

May I conclude that a bi-partisan approach in the conduct of electoral matters can only be reflective of self-interest and not national interest, as the Constitution would have envisaged. The Carter’s formulation may have taken cognizance of the lack of trust between the main competitors but at the same time provide a widow of opportunity for emergent non-partisan behaviour. Alas, our polity does not even allow for the acknowledgement of that opportunity, much less for its exploitation.

Regards
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioner