Dear Editor
THE Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is a constitutional body which functions in a sovereign state, the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. It is guided by a set of procedures which is its bible for administrative functioning in the holding of national and regional elections. Its abiding responsibility is therefore to ensure that the democratic will of citizens is upheld, through the exercise of free, fair and credible elections that are in accordance with its constitutional mandate of constitutional independence.

There is no doubt, therefore, that this seminal electoral body understands its functions; knows how to execute same, and has been doing so in accordance with its laid-down mandate.

It would seem that the visiting Carter Center is not aware of GECOM’S above-board performance, particularly since 2015, under the executive administration of President David Granger, whose unswerving commitment that GECOM adheres to its constitutional ideals stands as a monument to his government’s commitment that free, fair and credible elections be held.

As examples, the Local Government Elections(LGEs) of 2016 and 2018 stand as testimony to the national electoral body’s unquestioned competence in the discharge of its sacred duty towards the nation.

Thus, for the Carter Center to be calling on GECOM to clarify vote tabulation procedures, allow party scrutineers and observers….”, suggest the following:
Firstly, that GECOM does not know its functions.
Secondly, that there is some mischief afoot within the administrative body to conduct elections/arrive at its intended results by acts of subterfuge, that will not reflect the will of the people.

This statement, which reads like a demand, is an intrusion/interference into the affairs of a sovereign nation and amounts to interference. Further, it has to be seen as exceeding their mandate and status as observers, notwithstanding the historical role the centre played in past national polls, especially that of 1992.

It is even more surprising that such insult of a statement, rather a demand, is made to GECOM, given the fact that the body has among its electoral advisers two very eminent and renowned experts from the Commonwealth, reportedly there to advise the distinguished chairperson of GECOM, Retd Justice Claudette Singh on the national electoral process.

Editor, if this is also an instance of genuine concern by the centre, because of the Mc Carthyite syndrome that has afflicted the leader of the political opposition and his party, the PPP/C, then it is misplaced as well as it is misguided. It would seem that since the Jagdeo cabal is not in power, it does not feel confident about its electoral security, as when Gocool Boodoo, as the chief elections officer in 2011, had been caught red-handed RIGGING the 2011 ELECTIONS in favour of the PPP/C. Such an act should have meant Boodoo immediately resigning his position, or a unanimous vote from the two major political parties’ six commissioners, ending the dishonest and fraudulent chief elections officer’s tenure. Of course, the PPP/C upheld Boodoo’s criminal act- nothing new- until the then chairperson cast his deciding vote.

Let the Carter Centre be reminded that GECOM has been assiduous in its numerous actions, in the furtherance of its mandate of its remit of transparency of its electoral administrative machinery. To this end, none can question its openness with regard to its procedures. And this extends to even the well-known political quarters that had chosen to boycott the election’s body legitimate house-to-house registration exercise, thus refusing to have its scrutineers be part of such an important process.

So, rather than seek to cast aspersions on the credibility of GECOM/ be inveigled by the very political forces whose interference into the previous functions of the electoral body is well known, the Carter Centre should be concerned about an opposition presidential candidate whose criminal charges before the court and questions surrounding his fake university of attendance and airy-fairy qualifications are a matter of very grave concern, as these are very serious credibility issues that highlight integrity and honesty of character.

This is where the Carter Centre’s collective should be directing its attention, since any such candidate, particularly also given his manner of selection, stands not only as an insult to the people of this or any nation, but also to the very democratic principles which this centre has been strutting around the globe preaching and promoting for almost four decades. One need not remind the Carter Centre’s visiting members that true democracy is just more than the holding of national elections – it is also inclusive about electing to the highest office of the land, a person of the highest degree of probity, unquestionable character, and impeccable moral standing.

Regards
Mark Da Costa