A failure of political integrity in the composition of GECOM

Dear Editor,
The ongoing debate surrounding the composition of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) has laid bare a decisive test of political morality, propriety, principle, ethics, honor, and integrity for A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM). It is a test of fidelity to democratic norms and of respect for the spirit, not merely the letter, of constitutional order. At the first asking, however, this test has been failed.

Experience cannot supersede democratic legitimacy
Much has been made of the “wealth of experience” of the incumbent opposition-nominated commissioners. While their service may be acknowledged, this argument misses the essential point. We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), having emerged as the constitutionally recognized official opposition, is entitled by every measure of democratic equity to representation on GECOM. This entitlement is not a concession to be negotiated, nor a privilege to be withheld at the discretion of partisan actors; it is a right that must be respected in both form and substance.
Statesmanship demanded that the PNCR, acting with integrity, internalize the new parliamentary arithmetic and extend without hesitation an offer to WIN to occupy its rightful seat. To do otherwise is to corrode trust in the electoral machinery and erode the very legitimacy of the democratic framework. As James Russell Lowell warned, “Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof.” Expediency may provide temporary shelter, but it cannot sustain the edifice of a credible democracy.

The imperative of good faith
Democracy does not flourish on constitutional text alone. It thrives on the spirit of fairness, honor, and integrity that animates those provisions. WIN’s status as the principal opposition must, therefore, be mirrored in the structure of GECOM to ensure that its deliberations reflect the full and current spectrum of parliamentary representation. Anything less amounts to the deliberate exclusion of legitimate voices and undermines the inclusivity upon which democratic governance rests.
To resist this adjustment is to reveal a deeper malaise: a preference for procedural manipulation over principled governance. Such a stance signals that the calculus of power has taken precedence over the obligations of integrity. In the words of Louis D Brandeis, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Transparency and inclusion, not exclusion and expediency, are the foundations upon which trust in GECOM must be built.

Conclusion
The measure of true leadership is not in rhetorical homage to ethics but in the consistent practice of ethical conduct. In refusing to align GECOM’s composition with the political reality established by the electorate, APNU and FGM have squandered a straightforward opportunity to demonstrate principle. They have instead chosen expediency over honour, thereby setting a troubling precedent that will reverberate throughout Guyana’s democratic order.
History will record that in this defining moment, integrity was not upheld but sacrificed, and that the consequences, erosion of legitimacy, alienation of citizens, and deepened public cynicism, were entirely self-inflicted.

Yours sincerely,
Prof Dr Stanley
Anthony Vivion Paul