BARRING any very serious breach of the Standard Operational Procedure of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), it can safely be concluded that the nation’s constitutional body has successfully enabled the managing and conclusion of Guyana’s second Local Government Elections.

This very important exercise would have included, among other key measures, ensuring the posting of properly sanitised voters lists to the respective constituencies at the appropriate locations for pre-voting scrutiny by electors; ensuring that each of the polling stations was equipped with material for the voter exercise; that polling day staff had been properly and appropriately trained and be knowledgeable about the procedural steps for the casting of ballots; and last but not least, the providing of adequate security for protection of the polling day exercise.

And as far as has been reported, there were no issues that hampered/prevented any registered voter for the 2016 elections from casting his/her ballot.
A perennial complaint that has always been levelled against the national electoral body has been the very slow declaration of results. This time, the Commission was able to release some early results, though it can be agreed that the voter turnout has been pegged at a very disappointing 28 per cent, which would have resulted in a very much reduced vote-counting time for its staff.

One can only encourage that the Commission continue to hone its mechanisms, especially for the highly-anticipated 2020 national and regional elections. Preparing for national elections of any type is always a challenge for any state electoral body, since it is about setting in train the required mechanisms for what is the most important human right of citizens anywhere–exercising their democratic right to choose a government of their choice in a free, fair, and transparent manner.

This is the seminal function of such a body, inclusive of GECOM, tasked with such an all important task. It means that any other undertaking outside of this remit runs counter to its constitutional mandate, and intention.
Within recent times, GECOM has been both the focus of accusations and attacks, both unfair, baseless, without merit and reckless, that were designed to add a totally unacceptable understanding to its national responsibility, which sought to undermine the national confidence in its ability to deliver an election that was above board. And since we are fully aware as to the full details of this reckless behaviour, there will be no repetition here. But a further viewpoint is necessary.

Coming from the usual political direction, it would seem that the latter demand was for such constitutional entity to administer its daily functions in accordance with political dictates and expectations. A state elections commission was never established to perform its duties in a partisan manner or at the behest of any political party, since it is tasked with a matter of a national magnitude which involves all of the people.

In fact, its constitutional mandate entirely precludes it from delivering an election results/victory to any participating political party. Such must only occur on the campaign efforts of that particular party, with the elections body ensuring the transparency of the process.

GECOM has once again performed its constitutional, national mission in a professional manner in delivering a process that augurs well for the future advancement of national and regional elections. It has, by its adherence to its constitutional mandate, advanced the national democratic process. Very effectively, it has effectively silenced the usual critics.