Dear Editor,
THE concretisation of the PPP/C’s commitment to supporting scheduled Local Government Elections (LGEs) in 2021, has been appropriately represented in the National Assembly by the Hon. Nigel Dharamlall, Minister of Local Government. It follows public statements on behalf of the government by the Hon Minister of Finance Dr. Ashni Singh, President Dr. Irfaan Ali, and Vice-President the Hon. Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo. There is unquestionably no need for redress, and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), must step up to deliver the 2021 LGEs in an unprecedented free and fair manner.

Without any doubt, several remedial changes are required towards such delivery, given the disappointing depths of eroded confidence to which GECOM has fallen. Evidence of cross-cutting, biased positions taken by the justifiably condemned chief elections officer demands immediate fixes which must commence now since any result with the current culprits are likely to result in confusion and recounts and wasting taxpayers’ money. Several other areas which necessitate review or possible clearer policy are presented hereafter for consideration.

Attention and possible revisit must be given to the increasing number of Local Authority Areas (municipalities/NDCs), for which there were no consultations with the then main opposition party. In many instances, the outcome was an inadequacy of councillors’ representation for a specific area, although there would have been previously approved constituencies that were published in the Official Gazette. Particularly, this occurred in areas where a significant demographic shift of population occurred due to the PPP/C’s housing drive. Some newly sub-divided constituencies now bear a significant imbalance of the number of residents and distance assigned to one candidate competing to be elected as councillor against the other. A more equitable system is required.

The gerrymandering and impromptu shifting of existing boundaries which by the GECOM CEO cut across divisions/sub-divisions. They have created a nightmare for not only the voters who previously attended certain polling stations, but also for the position informing the support of specific candidates to be backed for elections as a councillor. Often when a boundary is capriciously shifted, particularly in new development locations, the descriptions of the boundaries placed in the Gazette are inconsistent with any specific ground with markings. GECOM needs to do much better in this respect for transparency.

In the creation of new divisions and sub-divisions, the boundary defining the previously established positions come into question and brings to the fore legitimacy queries. This is because divisions/sub-divisions are already legally created and published in the gazette, within the existing regional structure. Further, the newly created areas are placed in the Gazette in abstract to the changes and their effect on the previously notified positions. In context, I will argue that the creation of new divisions/sub-divisions may be done administratively to facilitate the elections, but they should not be considered as new unless legally approved as part of the regional structure.

Another area of concern is the conditions under which proxies are issued and which are often the subject of abuse and the time to correct the misnomer when discovered is not sufficient. A reassessment of the applicable verification procedures is necessary.

The casting of ‘lots’ as a solution to resolve issues of ties at LGEs is not readily accepted by most contestants involved in these elections. A more equitable remedy, rather than the option of chance, should therefore be implemented. Also, the process for replacing a councillor in case of death or continuous absence should be driven by total constituency voting specifics. In this respect, in the case of someone who is elected as an individual rather than a party slate, consideration should be given to:

a. Conducting a By-Election

b. Selecting the candidate who had secured the next highest number of votes in the constituency

c. Mutual agreement by the general council of elected councillors, on an individual from the contestants.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in preparation for the upcoming LGEs, interested stakeholder organisations, individuals, and political parties are urged to consider the requirements of communities in the various constituencies and local government areas. We must recognise the advancement of the standard of services required to mirror the pace of development that more likelywill be m moving exponentially under this PPP/C government. Likewise, community leaders must be able to provide initiatives that will catalyse a partnership to influence the parallel development of our local government areas.

Consequently, the selection of candidates should satisfy the conditions identified, considering the adequacy of representation in terms of gender and ethnic balance, an untarnished character within our laws, reputation, suitability, relationship with the community; availability, and capacity to serve and perform, together with knowledge of community structure.
Continued improvements and partnership are what we must strive for once GECOM upholds its responsibilities and deliver free and fair LGEs.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Kumar