Home Letters ERC failed to take action when it should have done so during...
Dear Editor,
Given what is unfolding in the public domain, I feel compelled to offer a response, as I did when I disassociated myself from an apology the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) issued to Member of Parliament Catherine Hughes.
On numerous occasions, I argued that the ERC must be non-partisan, consistent, and timely in its action and in keeping with its mandate to provide meaningful intervention in regard to the political impasse that lasted from 2018 to 2020. On those occasions, I was firm that the good work done through messaging for racial healing and numerous interactions with stakeholders across the country would be overshadowed by what appears to be a sense of partisanship. Sadly, the ERC, in my view, failed to offer impactful and definitive responses, and take action when it should have on election-related matters before and after March 02, 2020.
It is no secret that the ERC was heavily criticised for not responding to aspects of what transpired, especially during the five-month period following those elections.
One may question why my response now; its relevance and the timing. Both, in my view, allow for clarification. I did speak out internally with the expectation that the Commission, as a whole, would have responded in a manner expected and in keeping with its mandate. While support was found in a few, in the end, the majority prevailed.
In hindsight, maybe I should have gone public long before.
I have been consistent in stating internally that any utterance or action taken by anyone, once it leads to disharmony, must be of concern to the Commission. I held firm that whilst ethnic-related contentions are the main thrust of the Commission’s mandate, those contentions are not in isolation of discontent being derived from political developments, especially given the historical impact of elections here.
Others argued that only matters that are premised on ethnic infractions are within the mandate of the ERC. I held my position that the ERC itself was birthed out of political discord, with the sole intent of trying to prevent same. The Commission eventually agreed, and wrote some political parties to bring attention and caution on the use of language not necessarily premised on racial infractions during the 2020 election campaign, which language was deemed to be undesirable and unhelpful to the promotion of harmony.
Some, however, were adamant that no other intervention was necessary during the period of the electoral impasse. The race-related infraction argument and a negative impact on integrity were cited as major reasons. The reality now is that integrity has seemingly been lost as a result of inaction.
The differences of opinions led to many vibrant exchanges on how the Commission should treat with election-related matters. Almost in every instance, my views and suggested course of action were in the minority.
On numerous occasions I documented my concerns, and even tabled a motion for the Commission to officially state its position on the role of the second Caricom team and the recount. This became necessary since many were not inclined to recognise Caricom’s involvement and the actual recount and its findings. I still believe some haven’t.
When the motion came up for debate, the findings of the recount were already made public and Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali had already been sworn in as President. The motion was rendered irrelevant by the majority; and this, in reality, means there is no officially documented position of the ERC on those two issues.
I even questioned the rationale of the Commission sending a congratulatory message to President Ali when there was seemingly no official recognition of the process that had led to his swearing in.
I must, however, relate events prior to that, in order to demonstrate what seemed to be a sense of deliberateness to avoid any meaningful statement on political developments, reportedly by the majority, in order not to offend the then Government.
A commissioner who was vehement that any suggested intervention by the ERC in the electoral impasse would negatively impact integrity ensured that the word “rig” was removed from a letter sent recently to President Ali. That commissioner was instrumental in changing the context of a press release which is referred to later in this letter, and was vocal on the need to apologise to Mrs. Hughes.
I disagreed with the position that fundamental issues which led to the genesis of the political impasse were deemed to be outside the realm of the Commission’s mandate. I believe that in any endeavour to resolve situations or conflicts, the genesis has to be identified, and related parties confronted with the facts. If not, it could be seen as avoiding the real issue, with possible impact on the mediator’s credibility.
I also pointed out that, from the standpoint of the ERC, it is not about who wins, but about adherence to constitutional procedures in deriving the winner.
Constitutional transgression is an affront to democracy, and creates an enabling environment for discontent.
If the Commission could have pronounced, as it did, on some language used during that said campaign, why could it not pronounce on constitutional transgressions that led to an escalation of racial tension? That was my concern.
That, in my view, makes it imperative for the Commission to not stand on the sidelines – or appear to be so doing – on particular political developments that precipitate disharmony. While the Commission is expected to be non-partisan, I argued, it must take a side; the side of what’s right – Guyana’s side.
An objective examination of related positions taken could reveal a seeming hesitancy to call “a spade a spade”. The same goes for an objective examination of constitutional transgressions.
Respectfully,
Neaz Subhan
Commissioner, ERC
