UNLESS you are ignorant and utterly beyond redemption, then with a sane mind you can see right here how the Stabroek News (SN) has contradicted the EU Observer Mission (EUOM) on the role of incumbency. The EUOM and the Carter Center have cited the advantage the ruling party enjoyed during the election through public spending.
Now I am going to juxtapose what the EUOM concluded and the direct words the SN wrote denying the advantage the PPP had in the election. It is important for every Guyanese, wherever you are, that you read this juxtaposition I offer below. In reading this, you get a better understanding of what politics is and the confused and bizarre world of interactions in Guyana.
Here is the EUOM: “An undue advantage of incumbency distorted the level playing field…After the elections were announced, the President and his administration inaugurated a large number of public projects such as hospitals, schools, police stations and major transportation projects…. Several new or expanded social programmes were launched before September 1.  Among other benefits the President announced an unprecedented mass promotion and bonuses for more than 2800, the timing of which raised alarm.”
Here is the Stabroek News, Sep. 22): “This was, however no landslide. The country’s oil wealth might have deluded the PPP….It is a sobering result when one considers that the PPP/C government has absorbed billions of US$ in oil revenues and spent it excessively on major projects, handouts, education and health vouchers, the cash grant, free passage on bridges,  distribution of 50,000 house lots and all manner of promotions, concerts and festivals all of which were geared precisely to win it another term. One should also not forget its claim that it created over 50,000 jobs in five years. Yet, for all of this, for all of the untold and unreported expenditure it was only able to accrue 9,162 more votes.”
Somebody has to be right here and someone has to be wrong here. The EUOM was pellucid; incumbency gave the PPP an advantage. The SN was pellucid; incumbency did not help the PPP. Let’s spend the rest of the space on political theory to argue that there is no such thing as “election advantage of an incumbency.” I advise readers to note the words of the EUOM. They stress “public spending.”
This is where the Carter Center went badly wrong. This is where the political and cultural climate you come from determines how you see different cultures of the world. The Carter Center researchers have never witnessed public spending during an American election because in a super-capitalist state like the USA, the private sector is responsible for development. This is an American ideology. The state in the US does not engage in public spending as compared to post-colonial societies where the ideology is for the state to be the driver of development.
It is the same in Europe. During an election, there isn’t widespread state funding. In post-colonial countries, public spending on a large scale is ideological normalcy. So public spending on hundreds of areas goes on whether there is an election or not. It is unrealistic to tell an incumbent that once an election is announced, public spending must stop. That does not happen in any country. The stoppage of state-funded projects during election time is a fiction. It cannot be found in political theory. What happens to day-care centre and medical clinics that the rural folks depend on? Should they stop because there is an election?
The incumbents in Western capitalist societies do not stop spending during an election season. Their spending hardly focuses on development projects but on defence projects. There hasn’t been an election in any Western country where defence spending ceases till after the election. The incumbent in Western capitalist nations uses incumbency to their advantage but it takes a different form. They use anti-immigration and Cold War tactics to get an electoral advantage.
In European elections, the incumbents have used the Ukrainian War and support for Israel to win votes. They have outdone each other in their campaigns to prove who will offer more military aid to Ukraine and who will be more confrontational with Russia. It has happened in many European elections since the Ukrainian war and Gaza invasion began. Why is this not the use of incumbency to win votes? Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris milked Ukraine and Gaza to try to win reelection.
Finally, the outgoing EU Ambassador implored the Guyana Government to implement the EUOM recommendations. I hope the ambassador, when he goes back home, will advise EU countries to implement the UN findings that genocide is occurring in Gaza. Every EU country, Britain, Canada, the US, and Australia do not accept that genocide has occurred and is occurring in Gaza.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.