By now preparations would have intensified for the upcoming November 12 Local Government Elections (LGE). Political parties will be hunting for candidates they believe will be able to capture available seats. Individuals who may not want to be associated with a political entity have the opportunity of contesting as independents. This is what makes LGE interesting as the final make-up of a Neighbourhood Democratic Council (NDC) or a municipality can reflect representatives from both the political and apolitical divide.
For them, the intention must be to find common ground from a multiplicity of ideas for the benefit of the communities. While LGE may not have the hype associated with general elections, overall, they are far more complex and often seen as a good gauge of the electorate. This was very evident from the 2016 LGE, held just over a year and a half after the 2015 General Election. The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) won over 70 per cent of the NDCs, 48 out of 65 – a landslide.
However, that trend could not have been repeated for the municipalities winning 3 out of 9, with one tied. From all reports, the PPP won the overall popular vote when proportional representation was taken into consideration. This was after having narrowly lost at the general ballot in 2015. Many inferences can be drawn from that and with developments, negative and positive, over the two-year gap to November 12, the results of this upcoming litmus test will be most eagerly awaited.
To the Government’s credit, this is the second LGE it will be holding since coming to office in 2015. A strong point can be made of its perceived understanding of the need for such elections and for democracy at the grassroot level to be allowed to flourish. This is extremely important, not only for the empowerment it gives to residents, but for facilitating the mechanism which is expected to allow local concerns to be addressed. Of course, the availability of much-needed resources and effective implementation are totally different issues and obvious challenges.
Therefore, with a record to boast of over the holding of LGE, it was disappointing to hear from the Minister of Finance, that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) would have to make do with whatever financial resources it has available to execute the November 12 elections. Firstly, the obvious concern is whether what is available is actually adequate. This, however, would have been answered in the negative by GECOM following its request for additional financing.
Secondly, what’s the impact of holding an election without adequate funding? Thirdly and simply, why hold an election when there is concern over funding? Naturally, the Minister is expected to have concerns if he has evidence that the funds are being utilised for extraneous purposes at the expense of the needs of the electoral process or not effectively managed. However, the adage to the effect of “the wearer knows where the shoe pinches” cannot be dismissed. GECOM has to know. On the other hand, is the Minister on to something?
Without its desired funding, GECOM will be forced to cut corners. Unfortunately, and very possibly, with the seemingly dire need for all corners, prioritisation then becomes the priority. This means that areas crucial to effect all the necessary logistics for a comprehensive, transparent and fair process could possibly be compromised, albeit, unwillingly. This clearly becomes worrisome as quality, like in any process, can be called into question.
This can be explained in a very simple way; the construction of a very crucial road that genuinely costs G$1 million but only G$500,000 is provided. Obviously, the contractor will be forced to make cuts that would eventually affect the quality of the road. With that in mind, it may be pertinent to explore if there is another reason for not providing additional funds even though there may be awareness of the need. That in itself can conjure up all kinds of unsavoury thoughts given aspects of our history.
What is also of concern, at least thus far, is the silence over the issue by the Minister of Communities, who has responsibility for Local Government. While he is not expected to interfere in the electoral process, he can voice his concern about the impact inadequate funds can have. After all, for GECOM and the Minister of Finance and, as a matter of fact, everyone else, the overriding concern must be to ensure that nothing, including financing, is allowed an opportunity to interfere with and possibly compromise the integrity of the electoral process.
This once again raises the question of financial independence for entities such as GECOM. While it is not absolute, some mechanism has to be derived so as to avoid such scenarios, naturally taking into consideration the need for prudent management of the resources. More importantly, is how this apparent financial standoff would impact confidence of the electorate for the November 12 elections and how that can transfer beyond to the general election expected in 2020. This cannot be taken for granted especially that the LGE, holistically, are seen as a litmus test.
