On Saturday, two days before our General Elections which are being held today, US Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch issued a statement on the General Elections. “All eyes are on Guyana this week. I just returned from the worldwide US Ambassadors’ conference in Washington and there is great interest in free, fair and peaceful Guyanese elections on March 2.
I encourage all registered voters to exercise their franchise in a peaceful manner and to allow others to do the same. Good luck to all the parties. After the people of Guyana have spoken, the United States stands ready to work with the next democratically-elected administration, and I encourage all parties to respect the outcome.”
The US was the first country to institute democratic governance after its declaration of independence from Britain in 1776. Since then, it has remained a beacon to those countries that aspire to follow in that path by putting its money where its mouth is to promote democracy. In view of the history of Guyana, one important point made by the Ambassador is that “the United States stands ready to work with the next democratically-elected administration”. One answer to what this means concretely is given by one US Government statement on “ELECTIONS”
Expanding on “The Benchmark of Elections”, the statement declares, “Elections are the central institution of democratic representative governments. Why? Because, in a democracy, the authority of the government derives solely from the consent of the governed. The principal mechanism for translating that consent into governmental authority is the holding of free and fair elections.”
But it cautioned, that based on its experience, “All modern democracies hold elections, but not all elections are democratic.” In answering the question, “What Are Democratic Elections?”, the statement pointed out that “Jeane Kirkpatrick, scholar and former US Ambassador to the United Nations, has offered this definition: “Democratic elections are not merely symbolic….They are competitive, periodic, inclusive, definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to criticise government, to publish their criticism and to present alternatives.”
The US statement elaborated in more concrete terms on the non-negotiability of “free and fair elections” for democratic governance: “Democracies thrive on openness and accountability, with one very important exception: the act of voting itself. To cast a free ballot and minimise the opportunity for intimidation, voters in a democracy must be permitted to cast their ballots in secret. At the same time, the protection of the ballot box and tallying of vote totals must be conducted as openly as possible, so that citizens are confident that the results are accurate and that the government does, indeed, rest upon their “consent”.
When the election is over, the losers accept the judgment of the voters. If the incumbent party loses, it turns over power peacefully. No matter who wins, both sides agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of the society. The losers, now in the political opposition, know that they will not lose their lives or go to jail. On the contrary, the opposition, whether it consists of one party or many, can continue to participate in public life with the knowledge that its role is essential in any democracy worthy of the name. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the State and to the democratic process itself.
As the next election comes around, opposition parties will again have the opportunity to compete for power. In addition, a pluralistic society, one in which the reach of government is limited tends to offer election losers alternatives for public service outside government. Those defeated at the polls may choose to continue as a formal opposition party, but they may also decide to participate in the wider political process and debate through writing, teaching, or joining one of many private organisations concerned with public policy issues. Democratic elections, after all, are not a fight for survival but a competition to serve.”
Guyanese know who have violated these democratic rules and who have observed them and deserve their vote today.
