NOT unexpectedly, there is divided opinion of the President’s decision to unilaterally appoint the chair of GECOM. After all, when it comes to politics, ours is an acutely divided society—a division that is compounded by our ethnic divide. This is a condition that has been with us since the splits of the independence movement in 1955 and 1956 and shows little sign of decline. In fact, some observers have argued that our country is much more divided today than at any time in our recent history. Indeed, the very outcome of the process to select the GECOM chairperson, to a large extent, reflects the difficulty in managing that divide.

To understand how we got to the point where the President felt compelled to break with tradition and appoint the chair on his own, one should reflect on our larger political process. As in any other country, elections in Guyana are a high-stakes undertaking. Hence, the mechanism used to oversee those elections and the staffing of the institution to do so are highly contested.
At the end of the day, our Elections Commission is party-centred—the members are appointed by the political parties. In such circumstances, one cannot expect independent, collective decision-making and given our sharp political divide, there is little chance of bi-partisanship.

So, the chairperson becomes a pivotal process. This officer is expected to play a mediatory role and to be an impartial arbiter. Since citizens generally have partisan biases, the challenge has always been to find someone with the courage to perform that function in a manner that is satisfactory to both sides of the political aisle.
By the time we got to the 1990s and the return of free and fair elections, there was the general acknowledgement that the mechanism previously used to select the chairperson was flawed, in that it was not premised on meaningful input by all the political parties involved.

So, at the urging of President Jimmy Carter, the political parties of that time accepted a formula whereby the opposition Leader after consultation with other opposition parliamentary parties, presents the sitting president with a list of nominees from which he may choose one.

The success of this system, then, assumed that the opposition would present the president with a list of persons acceptable to both sides. In that regard, it was assumed that, at the least, the list would be bereft of persons who are openly aligned with any of the political parties. From all indications, the lists presented to the presidents during the PPP’s tenure in office, met this minimum standard—they chose their preferred person without much fuss or any controversy.

One curious observation during that time was that the Indian Guyanese-based PPP always chose an Indian-Guyanese candidate. That, as others have observed, is not a fact to be ignored. It indicated two things. First, that ethnicity was an important factor as far as the PPP was concerned. Second, that the opposition lists allowed the PPP the scope to make such a choice. We make this observation to make the point that the PPP, perhaps unintentionally, was adding a new element to the Carter formula.

Fast forward to the present. Upon Steve Surujbally’s resignation, it was now the PPP’s turn to present a list to the President. Opposition Leader Jagdeo presented three lists, all of which contained the names of persons who were either known to be supporters of the PPP or to be hostile to the government. This is where we think the process broke down—the inability of the PPP to honour the basic requirement of presenting lists devoid of persons who were not known to be politically aligned.

There is the view that the president’s unilateral appointment flies in the face of the constitution and violates our democratic ethos. We obviously differ with that view. Our reading of the constitution is that the President has that right—a reading that is supported by the recent ruling of the learned chief justice. To argue to the contrary, as the PPP has done, is nothing short of partisan political propaganda which should be called out for what it is.
Others have pointed to the President’s departure from the norm and the negative perception that such a move feeds. That is indeed a much more plausible argument that is worth debating as we move forward. That the President has made a political gamble by erring on the side of a strict interpretation of the constitution is beyond doubt. The political correctness of that position is also open to debate and scrutiny by our opinion-shapers and commentators.

The opposition for its part has vowed to take the matter all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and to engage in non-cooperation with the government. Engaging the court on the matter is part of the democratic process that should be honoured and respected and we do so. But the threat of non-cooperation does not get the same support.
It should be noted that ever since this government came to power, the PPP has withheld its cooperation. So, this new policy is really a continuation of an already entrenched approach. As we have previously opined in these pages, such an approach is, in the final analysis, counterproductive to the national interest—a position that we reiterate.

In the last analysis, the president’s action must be evaluated within the context of its constitutionality and its threat to the stability of the democratic foundations of our political process. We are satisfied that on both counts the president is on the right side. But that does not blind us to the fears expressed by important sections of our society, some of which are grounded in our lived history.

It is a concern that should not be ignored. Hence, it would be in the interest of the President and his government to do all they can to calm those fears.