THE thwarting of the democratic will and the complete manipulation of the electoral process is best described by the term ‘rigging’. This term has gained currency because it perfectly captures what has frequently occurred in the past and currently occurs when contestants in an electoral process do not play fair.

That aside, the term has become a usual political tool for those who have no intention to accept the results of an electoral process, before and after its conclusion. While it remains an ignoble and shameful practice that should be met with punitive consequences, a holistic analysis of this phenomenon would reveal that it has become an established global political sound bite for those who know their defeat through a fair process is inevitable. It is all part of the discredit playbook.

UPPING THE TRANSPARENCY ANTE
In polities where governments have been efficient and have embarked on enough development projects that almost guarantee their return to office, opposition parties place little faith in free and fair vote-casting. As a consequence, they direct all electioneering attention on the court of public opinion and the international community. This action is usually ungirded by attempts to discredit the polls and the nucleus of this action normally rests with upping the transparency ante to an unreasonable level.

Simply put, opposition parties would consistently shift the goal post for transparency in their demands and communication with electoral commissions. Every time a demand for openness is met, more are thrown into the fray with the intention of them not being accepted to ensure the narrative of ‘rigging’ receives consistent oxygen.

This has become a popular global political playbook. Nic Cheeseman documented the five steps used by opposition parties globally to discredit elections and sustain baseless accusations of electoral theft; lay the foundations (challenge electoral preparations), direct the blame (use social media to peddle rumors about elections commission members), claim victory, protest early and protest often and demand action (insist on the international community taking action).

How is all of the aforementioned tied to the topic under discussion? Upping the ante for transparency is necessary to ensure the populace remains convinced that elections are being stolen or have been stolen. When you throw a lobbying firm in this mix with big investments and oil contracts up for grabs, this development is intensified astronomically and is fraught with the passion of ten thousand suns.

POLITICAL SOUND-BITES
This term was made famous by the U.S. media during the 1970s. It usually represented, in one word, or a short phrase, that which impacts minds, to the point where the concept is believed, through sheer repetition, even though it may be inaccurate or does not reflect the truth of what might occur or has occurred. According to Danielle Allen, in her publication, ‘Politics, Propaganda and the Use and Abuse of Sound-Bites’, ‘They are sonic or embodied pleasure; all that alliteration—it is not just that it helps us remember. We enjoy it in the same way that we enjoy the taste of chocolate or a gentle breeze across our skin.

It is literally that physical.” For this reason, prior to elections, political parties that are not certain about winning would slowly discredit the process by consistently and incessantly repeating certain keys words that play on the minds of the populace. In this regard, the word ‘rigging’ is normally featured the most in modern elections. When the polls did not favour him, candidate Trump employed this mechanism during the US 2015 elections.

It is used as a strategy or a targeted campaign message which acts as a safety valve, so if your opponents emerge victoriously, the process is discredited in the eyes of all and sundry. Once this messaging is engrained through various communication channels, on the day of elections and during the tabulation process, if there is any slippages or glitches, they are easily interpreted and accepted as ‘rigging’, since the perpetrators of this strategy would have already created the fertile psychological ground for this to be believed or readily accepted, due to the reasons articulated above.

So how do we know the process is credible? The experts have identified independent observers, who execute their duties according to the standards outlined in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Elections Observers Handbook, as the best source to establish credible polls. They have also cautioned that observers can get it wrong.

ELECTIONS ‘RIGGING’ IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO GOVERNMENTS
With the above in mind, it has to be noted, the ‘rigging’ of elections is not exclusive to governments, even though the evidence suggests the phenomenon is more likely to be perpetuated by those who control the state apparatus. Daniel Calingaert noted, ‘Up to sixty regimes in the world today can be classified as “electoral authoritarian”: They restrict the exercise of democratic freedoms, yet allow periodic multiparty elections in an attempt to bolster their domestic and international legitimacy. The rulers of these regimes are unwilling to risk losing elections, however, and so they manipulate elections to ensure that they remain in power’.

Insofar as this deplorable exercise is not limited to the state, utilizing sound-bites to deny, discredit and create doubt in the context of a disinformation campaign are key for those who are outside of the halls of power. In doing so, opposition parties simultaneously employ a plethora of ways to tinker with the vote; voter intimidation, graveyard voting (voting by dead people), vote-buying, disinformation, confusing or misleading voters at the place of polls, bribing elections officials, hacking the computers of elections officials and stuffing the ballot.

As long as there is widespread distrust among the populace, shouting ‘rig’ in countries such as Guyana with a history of electoral malpractice is easy as taking candy from a baby to achieve the objective of this ploy. This is exactly what occurred in Bolivia in its October 20, 2019, voided elections. Leading up to those polls, opposition parties sounded the alarm on possible fraud from the very outset and continued to beat this popular global drum at every turn of their electioneering.

It was so intense, even voters who supported the ruling party had their doubts about the integrity of the process. Once the groundwork was perfectly laid and the results were in, the counting of the votes commenced amidst a thick cloud of suspicion, carefully crafted by the political opposition through the political sound-bite, ‘de las elecciones fraudulentas’. The live broadcast of the close count set the perfect stage. The Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE), showed Morales in separation from the next closest candidate by 7.9 percent, short of the 10 percent required to avoid a second round.

A sudden stoppage in the transmission of the results triggered a visceral reaction that was carefully planted in the minds of Bolivians. The resumption of the feed showed Morales in the lead by a wide margin and this sparked widespread violence and condemnation by the international community. This resulted in the exile of Morales to Mexico and as we speak, those elections have been voided and there is an agreement for new polls because much evidence has been uncovered that shows that there was no fraud. It was public relations coup d’etat, Morales won those elections fairly but the ‘rigging’ sound-bite and the discredit playbook triumphed.

It might be too early to draw sweeping conclusions about the Guyana 2020 elections but at this juncture, there is no doubt that the government of Guyana has been hit by a popular political playbook.