NOW that the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, Dr Steve Surujbally, has indicated to government his intention to step down after being in charge of that electoral body for over 16 years, it might be the appropriate time for the administration together with the opposition and other stakeholders to start thinking about radically reforming GECOM. The management of GECOM has always been fraught with deep political concerns and anxieties, given the history of elections here and their aftermath. The main sticking point, though there are several others that have plagued GECOM, is the manner in which commissioners are chosen. This methodology must as a matter of necessity change if GECOM is to be managed efficiently.
For decades now the Elections Observer Groups from the Commonwealth, the Carter Center, the Organisation of American States, the Electoral Assistance Bureau, the Caricom Secretariat, and the Union of South American Nations have been insisting that while GECOM’s purpose for existence is to administer free and fair electoral processes, and while it is recognised that the commission has to be sensitive to and relate to political realities, its independence and impartiality must be protected.
The current members of GECOM save for the chairman, are all tainted with the political brush, some of whom are also diehard party loyalists. Ms Bibi Shadick is a Central Committee member of the People’s Progressive Party, who openly boasts of her loyalty to the PPP and that she is representing, first and foremost, the interests of her party. Then there is Mr Robeson Benn, a former minister who was on the PPP’s platform in Essequibo 16 days after he took the oath of office as GECOM commissioner. Sase Gunraj was clad in PPP colours accompanying former President Donald Ramotar on polling day May 11, 2015, hours before he had to sit around a table to tabulate and pronounce on election results. Additionally, there is Charles Corbin, who is the brother of former leader of the People’s National Congress Reform; Ms Sandra Jones, who was the Returning Officer when President David Granger was voted in as Leader of the PNCR in 2011 and lastly, Mr Vincent Alexander, who was director of elections for the PNC during the 2006 general and regional elections as well as a former senior executive of that party.
There is no doubt that some of these commissioners are well-intentioned, well-meaning individuals who take their roles seriously. One cannot escape the temptation of reminding our citizens of Mr Alexander’s astuteness, vigilance and knowledge of the system that prevented the PPP from stealing a narrow majority at the 2011 elections, when someone at GECOM had allegedly fiddled with the numbers. The PPP lost the majority in that election and three years later it was swept from government. The above is mentioned here, if only to emphasise that these circumstances must inexorably and eventually lead towards continuous conflict and challenges in managing the commission and necessitate a comprehensive review of the way commissioners are selected and placed on GECOM.
The Carter Center following the 2001 elections had stated: “In advance of future elections, Guyana should consider reforms that would reduce the politicised composition of GECOM and move toward an Electoral Management Body (EMB) with a structure, composition and operations that are more consistent with international good practices and obligations, thus ensuring the independence and impartiality of the EMB.” The Center had made similar observations in the 2006 and 2015 elections. Additionally, the Commonwealth Secretariat on the same issue had recommended that “strong consideration should be given to ending the practice of having political appointees as members of GECOM.” The Commonwealth had said that the present formula compromises the effectiveness and integrity of the commission, which needs to be independent and above partisan politics at all levels.
At the time of writing this editorial, we were told that top officials from GECOM had sought legal advice on how best the current formula could be changed and it was determined that key questions such as: would a simple majority in Parliament suffice; would a two-thirds majority solve the problem or can the change only take place with a referendum?.
There is also a suggestion that a referendum is the only option which would satisfy the legalities associated with the problem. They are many who believe that since the enactment of the said Act 2 of 2000, which provided for the establishment of the permanent elections commission, was carried out without a referendum; similarly, any statutory change could be effected without a referendum. In fact, the current laws attending to the electoral commission composition were at best a transitional device in 1992 and have since exhausted their usefulness.
Even the Carter Center’s report pertaining to the 2001 elections stated: “The Carter Center Formula which was critical to the success of the breakthrough transitional elections in 1992 has allowed in subsequent elections, party interests to interfere with effective electoral administration.” In the said report, the center also advised that “as part of electoral reform efforts, Guyana should give careful consideration to alternative models, possibly reducing or eliminating political party representation on the commission and increasing the role of the independent members of civil society and professional experts. Here’s hoping that discussions will begin in earnest to deal with this very important issue.