Political Teacher | Perspectives on the issues arising from the Guyana March 2, 2020 Elections

Were the Guyana elections fraudulent?
First, was the voting process fraudulent?
After polls closed, the following comments were made by Observer missions:

The Carter Center:
“The Center’s 41 observers conducted 220 observations in polling stations across all 10 regions, in addition to observing the advance voting for disciplined forces that took place on Feb. 21. Carter Center observers reported that voting and counting processes were largely well-organised and peaceful, and assessed the implementation of voting procedures as positive, with only occasional inadequacies….
GECOM utilised its strong base of electoral expertise to conduct well-managed voting-day operations. The voting and counting processes were generally well-prepared and logistically sound.”

Organisation of American States (OAS) Observer mission head Commended the people of Guyana on their strong democratic commitment, which he said was reflected in their peaceful and enthusiastic participation in the polls.

European Union Observer mission:
They described the voting as “well managed” with everyone able to express their franchise.

Commonwealth Observer mission: Commended the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on its hosting of an efficient election process on March 2.
“Polling conducted in an orderly, transparent and a largely peaceful environment. Polling stations were generally well organised and prepared for the polls and opened promptly…staff appeared to be well trained and we commend them for their professionalism and their diligence,”

CARICOM Election Observation Mission: Satisfied that the conduct of the Poll was “free, fair and transparent.”

Said the people of Guyana “should be proud of themselves,” and the mission salutes the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and the citizens of the country “for the peaceful conduct of the poll,” and expects that the results of the poll “will reflect the free expression of the will and aspirations of the Guyanese people, for a government of their choice.”

The various comments from the observer missions convey that the voting process in the elections was well managed, peaceful, proceeded largely without incident and was free, fair and transparent.

It is therefore, reasonable to conclude then that the voting process was not fraudulent.
Secondly, was the counting/tabulation fraudulent?
Consequently, dissatisfaction was expressed about the tabulation in Region Four.

SPREADSHEET
Complaint was made about the Returning Officer tabulating from a spreadsheet and not directly from the statements of poll. This was not unusual as it is a common practice by ROs to populate a spreadsheet from the SOPs and then tabulate from the spreadsheet, and this process was actually used in some of the other regions in these elections.  Purely an operational issue where parties rely on the RO.  The PPP/C was not prepared to rely on the RO in Region Four, as they had done in some of the other regions.

PPP/C demanded that the RO must do the tabulation directly from the SOPs.  They stormed GECOM’s offices demanding documents and abusing and intimidating GECOM staff.   They also went to court and the court ordered the RO to tabulate directly from the SOPs.

PRESENCE OF ALL PARTIES
RO restarted the tabulation using the SOPs. After that, the complaint was then that the tabulation was not being done in the presence of all parties, where all parties could see the SOPs. See joint statement from Observers.

Joint Statement – March 6
The international observer missions from the Commonwealth, the Organisation of American States, the European Union, and The Carter Center issued the following statement:
“The tabulation of results for the election in Region Four was interrupted and remains incomplete. The law requires that tabulation must be conducted in the presence of party agents and observers. Until this transparent process takes place, the counting of votes recorded for Region Four remains incomplete.
The transparent tabulation of results for Region Four must be resumed in order to proceed to the establishment of national results.

A calm and conducive environment must be provided by the police. We urge all political parties to adhere to the codes of conduct signed by them.
The Guyana Elections Commission, including the chairperson, the commissioners, the chief elections officer, the returning officer and deputy returning officers in Region Four, must be available and committed to establishing the results for Region Four in accordance with the law.
Until this occurs, the result of these elections cannot be credibly declared.”

The entire statement is reproduced so that it is clear what the complaint from the observers was at that stage.

The complaints at this point were all procedural related, as they were all about how the RO was proceeding.  Complaints were about transparency, not about fraud.  Those complaints were addressed.
The RO moved proceedings to GECOM head office where there was the facility to display SOPs on the screen for all to see. The process was continued and completed at GECOM.  That process would have satisfied the specific requirements mentioned in the joint statement.  So, it is not clear: What is the specific problem that some of the observers continue to have about the last tabulation done from the SOPs on March 13? All parties were present, and all SOPs were displayed for all to see.
Before that process was completed, new complaints emerged.  The new complaint was now based on what one can only be described as a spurious claim made by the PPP/C.

DIFFERENT FROM PPP/C’S SOPS
The PPP/C has claimed that SOPs used by the RO in Region Four were different from the SOPs it has, which it displayed on its website. Amazingly, the OAS Observer Mission mentioned that and said that because GECOM and APNU did not challenge PPP/C’s SOPs, the implications were “deeply troubling.”  This is amazing because GECOM is the constitutional authority in this process, and credence must be given to their SOPs over those of any other party.  GECOM has no obligation or responsibility to challenge SOPs presented by any other party.  This view of GECOM’s status is consistent with all parties previously maintaining that GECOM is the only authority who can declare elections results.

Apart from the fact that GECOM’s SOPs are what must be considered, it should be noted that the first publication by PPP/C of its vote tally stated that the document was prepared on February 29, 2020, two days before the elections (See Table One below).  That alone should have raised questions and doubt about the authenticity of the PPP/C’s numbers. That initial tally was withdrawn and replaced with one dated March 5, 2020.

SHIFTING COMPLAINTS
Importantly, neither PPP/C, Observers nor diplomats have stated specifically how the tabulation exercise on March 13 did not comply with the law, and neither has any credible reason or evidence been provided to question the SOPs used by GECOM.

The events mentioned above indicate that there were shifting complaints as the process evolved and in respect of the last one, relating to the PPP/C SOPs, it is more than strange that SOPs produced by a political party could be used, without any other corroborating evidence, as a basis for questioning the integrity of the SOPs of the constitutional authority GECOM…..the same GECOM which was praised by observers for its handling of the “well managed” and “free, fair and transparent” elections.   A higher standard must be required and applied if the integrity of the otherwise praiseworthy constitutional body is to be called into question.

Controversy
The impression has been given by some that there was controversy about counting and tabulation of votes only in Region Four.   This is incorrect.  In Regions Three and Six, APNU+AFC objected to tabulations done by the ROs and requested recounts of the votes. The RO denied the request in Region Three.  In Region Six, the recount is suspended until further notice because APNU+AFC has insisted that new blank SOPs should be used for the recount, and PPP/C has refused to open its lock on the container for the blank SOPs to be retrieved.

OBSERVERS
It is interesting that very strident and questionable comments were made by the leaders of the OAS and Commonwealth Observer Missions when compared with comments by other observer missions.  In both cases, they raised objections to the declarations made by the RO for Region Four presumably because they were different from the SOPs and tally produced by the PPP/C.  This begs the following question: Is it a mere coincidence that the leaders of those two missions are former Prime Ministers of Caribbean countries who were in office when the current Guyana leader of the opposition was President and are his close friends?  We can only speculate about the answer, but the events do suggest that better care ought to have been taken by both organisations in the choice of leader of their observer missions.

When viewed dispassionately, the complaints about a lack of transparency in the process in Region Four were addressed.  Initially, the process adopted was no different than in other regions.  Ultimately, the process followed was in keeping with the legal requirements, and special arrangements were made for all parties to view the SOPs used by GECOM to complete the tabulation. The complaints of a lack of transparency in the tabulation exercise were fully addressed by the RO and GECOM.

Equally, the allegations of fraud have arisen solely from one political party producing SOPs different from those held by the constitutional authority responsible for the elections. They have provided no evidence to support an allegation that GECOM’s SOPs could be fraudulent.

Regrettably, observers and diplomats have apparently bought into the PPP/C’s narrative without sufficient objective examination of the facts and in the absence of any evidence to support fraud.

It is a dangerous precedent to question the integrity and work of a constitutional body without any compelling evidence and solely based on unsupported allegations made by a political party which has a vested interest.  Such action undermines both the constitutional body as well as democracy in Guyana.

NATIONAL RECOUNT
The President, in his judgment, saw it fit to invite CARICOM to oversee a recount of all votes in all regions.  He did so in an effort to settle all issues in the presence of CARICOM as another independent body.  The leader of the opposition agreed to this process.   Both Leaders insisted that such a recount must be undertaken in compliance with the Constitution and laws of Guyana. CARICOM accepted that condition as well.  Consequently, there was agreement on the procedure to be adopted within that framework.

Subsequently, a Guyanese citizen has taken issue with this arrangement, and is mounting a challenge in the Supreme Court and in the interim has obtained an injunction to halt the recount.  The right of the citizen to take this action cannot be denied and ought to be respected.  This action ought to be welcomed by all stakeholders as the Supreme Court will adjudicate on the legality of the process, which should be a concern for everyone involved.  It is unfortunate that the Chairman of CARICOM has ascribed ulterior motives to this development.  This response from the chairman could well call into question CARICOM’s status as a “honest broker” going forward in this process.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.