Surujbally’s position signifies partiality to Opposition

GUYANA Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairman, Dr. Steve Surujbally’s adjuration that there must be limits on campaign financing, lest the country run the risk of becoming a “narco-state”, denotes his partisanship on the side of Guyana’s political Opposition and seems to verify the contentions of PPP/C supporters that GECOM is extremely prejudicial and untrustworthy to manage elections in Guyana in an impartial manner.In what seemed to be a pre-planned, orchestrated and well-rehearsed line of questioning and response by persons affiliated and still loyal to Opposition parties, the Guyana Chronicle reports “… responding to a question posed by the Co-Chair of the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), Mike Mc Cormack, during a Public Local Government Forum organised by the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI), Dr. Surujbally said campaign financing has been on the table for an extensive period.
Mc Cormack questioned whether there is an effective system in place to prevent wealthy families from buying the elections, given the new Local Government Elections System whereby individuals can contest for posts. Dr. Surujbally responded that this issue was not limited to Local Government Elections, but encompassed General Elections as well.
According to him, if the financing of election campaigns remains unlimited, the state can be infiltrated by drug lords or criminal elements.
Though the battle has been a rough one, Dr. Surujbally stressed that a system must be institutionalised to put a brake on campaign financing. “We must, with all the wars, we must; because if we don’t, the effects would be very destructive to the state,” Surujbally stressed.
Despite all these efforts of persons with vested interests in Guyana, seemingly including the partisan Surujbally, this undemocratic position has not fructified in any significant decision; and the USA seemingly endorsed this when the US Supreme Court ruled last month that it was unconstitutional to put a cap on overall campaign contributions.
Although acknowledging the rising challenges in curbing campaign financing, the Chairman said GECOM continues to search for methodologies and criteria to put a cap on the financing of election campaigns; so Surjbally is not letting up in his campaign to disadvantage the PPP/C in every way he can, which is worrying, because his overt concern for the fortunes of the Opposition at the polls makes the operations of GECOM suspect; especially when one takes into consideration the cheating that was done against the PPP/C during the 2011 elections, especially on the West Demerara, to enable the combined Opposition an advantageous position in Parliament, albeit with a miniscule six-votes/one seat majority.

While the Chairman of GECOM was a member of the audience, Vincent Alexander sat alongside GECOM Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield, as part of the panel which in detail explained the new components of Guyana’s Local Government System, with primary focus on Proportional Representation and the old electoral system of First Past the Post. GCCI President, Lance Hinds and immediate past President Clinton Urling were also among officials at the head table. The political affiances of all these persons are well-known.
In April 2011, the Alliance For Change (AFC) had tabled a motion in the National Assembly to curb campaign financing; however, Government had used its majority in the House to effect changes to the motion before sending it to a Special Select Committee.
The first resolve clause in the motion, in its original form, read: “That this National Assembly recognises that a strong democracy requires healthy political parties, resources to sustain and operate a basic party structure capable of representing people, contributing creatively to the public policy debate and contesting elections; and that the role of money in politics undeniably influences the quality of democracy and governance.” However, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic Government changed the word “money”.
In the second clause, the AFC had pushed for the Government to present to the National Assembly relevant laws and regulations pertaining to political party campaign financing and curtailing abuse of public resources by the incumbent leading up to and during elections, in keeping with recommendations put forward by the Commonwealth Secretariat.
This, AFC argued, was necessary to create a level playing field for parties contesting elections in Guyana.
However, it is a known fact that PPP/C supporters, both rich and poor, contribute overwhelmingly by voluntarily giving their time, resources and finances to their party to ensure that their party is victorious at the polls; and it would be undemocratic to deny them this right.

As for Surjbally’s contemptible subliminal suggestion that the state, read PPP/Cs elections campaign, can be infiltrated by criminals and funded with drug money, this is gross contempt, a la Freddie Kissoon, for PPP supporters, and relegates them to the underworld as criminals, merely for supporting the party of their choice.
It is a well-known fact that AFC funding has dried up because of lack of accountability of millions of dollars of campaign funds during the last elections; and the PNC is, as usual, bankrupt; whereupon, even without campaign financing, the PPP/C can bankroll its own elections campaign, because the brilliant economists within that party have made wise investments to boost their party’s finances to make it independent of those who would exploit it for personal gains. And, also as usual, the party would be aided by its volunteers countrywide, who provide services and time, as well as resources unlimited.
Campaigning for the PPP/C is not a problem. The real issue that causes concern is the partiality to the Opposition by key stakeholders, including Surujbally and other GECOM officials.
Significant was the composition of the presenters at the head table at a forum dealing with an issue on which the PPP/C and supporters are key stakeholders.
As for Surjbally’s nonsensical contention that large campaign funding could be drawn from drug money, what about small campaign funding, and who and what determines parameters?

Also cognisance needs to be taken of suspicions of the campaign funder for the AFC during its initial campaign, with open accusations made that the man was complicit in drug-trading activities; and the fact that many are using their parliamentary seats to stymie national developmental projects to support the interests of their party funders and their clients. Surujbally should address all these anomalies if he wants to retain even an iota of credibility.

Given the history of Guyana, and the latterly current actions and utterances of UK/USA/EU envoys, the PPP/C has much to fear in the conduct of any elections by GECOM as is currently composed.