CIVIL BEHAVIOUR is expected of civilized persons socialized to deal with their fellowman with requisite courtesies, despite disagreements over issues. Within the human condition controversies often arise over matters pertinent to one’s interests; but it is dealing with the matter so that, if there cannot be unanimous positions, then compromises that are non- judgmental and non-venomous can dissolve tensions in relationships that can determine the level of one’s maturity, intelligence, and commitment to peaceful conflict resolution.
Agreeing to disagree many times dissolves animosity and leaves clear a pathway on which divergent bodies can tread together toward a common goal.
The recent impasse between Guyana’s political parties over the re-opening of registration so that the many persons in danger of disenfranchisement would not be robbed of their constitutional right to vote came to an end yesterday when GECOM Chairman, Dr. Steve Surujbally, read the announcement that, after deliberations and extensive discussions a majority decision to reopen the Claims and Objections Period for thirteen days had prevailed, thus allowing inclusion in the Final Voters’ List of those persons who had received their source documents, in this critical instance their birth certificates, too late to be included in the initial voters’ list.
Opposition Commissioner, Mr. Robert Williams, had cast the deciding vote; and, according to a statement from which he read, his decision to compromise on this vital issue was based on several considerations, primarily that the general elections would be held within the constitutional timeline, which he was convinced would be done.
Although this decision was not a unanimous one, the political parties should abide by GECOM’s verdict and not pronounce on extraneous irrelevancies, but act in the responsible and mature manner that Commissioner Williams displayed when he gracefully and graciously conceded that, in the interest of advancing the elections process in as peaceful and timely a manner as is possible, under extant circumstances, he should concede to the concerns raised by the PPP/C, that no-one desirous of voting should be robbed of their constitutional right to do so.
Therefore, the political parties contesting the general elections of 2011 should agree to disagree in this instance and move on to the important things that can give them greater openings for victory at the polls this year.
Petty bickering over non–issues can bolster no one’s credibility and instead put those parties at a disadvantage.
As PPP General Secretary and presidential candidate Donald Ramotar said, the PPP fought relentlessly to enshrine the rights for Universal Adult Suffrage to every Guyanese citizen, and no one should rob them of that constitutional right to vote for a government of their choice, even if that choice is the fledgling APNU, TUF, or the AFC.
Dr. Surujbally, subsequent to his announcement yesterday, issued a statement in which he outlined the legal prerequisites of GECOM’s mandate; and then said “…The National Registration Act, Chapter 19:08 and the Representation of the People Act, chapter 1:03 provide the methodologies for the conduct of registration and elections respectively.
“Having noted the above, I must state categorically that GECOM has never departed from these legal provisions in carrying out its mandates, and I can guarantee, at least under my stewardship, that there is no such intention to deviate from these dictates – now or in the future.”
With a commitment to keep “…. in our collective cognizance that a complete and credible Voters’ List, one that does not engender protests and accusations of disenfranchisement, is a fundamental requirement for the conduct of elections that would be commonly accepted as free, fair and transparent in accordance with international best practice”, this announcement by Dr. Steve Surujbally did not come as a surprise to those who are privy to this man’s integrity in treating with matters that fall within the parameters of his bounden responsibility.
Certainly, robbing anyone of their rights does not come even remotely within his radar; and he would go that extra mile to persuade others to agree to disagree in order to ensure that ethics prevail over that which is opportune or convenient.