Dear Editor,
It is not uncommon, even in highly touted democracies, to have parliamentary elections’ results challenged. A controversial election can be the catalyst for bitterness, or even violence, if procedures do not exist for candidates to challenge the validity of the election’s outcome. Not that the procedures by themselves would provide an iron-clad immunity against bitterness and violence.
The history of Guyana shows just the opposite. Many times, in our history, the responses to perceived electoral irregularities have been physical intimidation, rather than recourse to a legal challenge. And APNU enjoys a special notoriety in this respect, as was recently made abundantly clear.
The challenge is effectuated through a procedure known as an election petition. The right to file an election petition is derived from a system of laws and procedures that is highly institutionalised. That system of laws and procedures is known as rational-legal legitimacy, which many would consider the bedrock of legitimate government. APNU’s ability to legally challenge the election’s results is not hindered by the popularity of the party that holds office, or by the charisma of the person (the President) who holds the highest office in Government. If that were the case, it would mean that the people in office are more than the office itself. That would be the antithesis of the concept of rational-legal legitimacy.
APNU has filed two elections’ petitions. Through these petitions, APNU hopes to have the High Court declare the election void or undue. If the High Court declares the election void, the results would be quashed, and a writ would be issued for a new election to be held. If the Court adjudges the election to have been undue, the original outcome would be upended, and the Court would declare another candidate as having been elected. The first scenario would see a fresh election; the second would see Granger in office. APNU would be delighted with either outcome, but it would be preeminently ecstatic with the latter. However, nobody seems to be losing sleep over this. The legitimacy of the new Government is accepted by all, except APNU. This means that citizens have confidence par excellence that the High Court would uphold the results of the election.
In terms of the law, APNU is within its right to file an election petition, as was made clear when it adamantly refused to concede, citing serious electoral irregularities as the basis of its intransigence. For the purpose of filing the petition, no vetting of the reasons for the petition by any judicial body is required. All that matters is that the aggrieved candidates know that a legal recourse exists, and that merit undergirds their case. For candidates concerned about reputation and their prospect in future elections, this would be the judicious thing for them to consider. Simply believing that you have a remote chance of success is not enough in the context.
Facts do not exist, even though APNU unsurprisingly behaves as though facts underpin its case.
The contention that there were irregularities is all that APNU must go on. It has no statistics, no documentary evidence to buttress that claim. The Statements of Poll (SOP) have never been proffered to all the relevant stakeholders. The statements of poll are the culmination of a process that begins with the counting of the votes by an election officer following the close of a poll. The process involves: “Counting the electors who voted, counting the electors to whom a registration certification was given, counting the spoiled ballots and placing them in the envelope provided for that purpose, counting the unused ballots and ensuring that all ballots are provided for. During the count, the election officer examines each ballot, shows it to each person present, and asks another election officer to tally the vote in favour of the candidate for whom the vote was cast.
Given the centrality of the SOPs to the determination of which party or candidate emerged with more votes at the polls, APNU’s failure to disclose its SOPs when all the other parties did so could only mean one thing: comparatively less votes for APNU relative to the PPP. This fact cannot be obscured by unfounded claims and threats. This is a hopeless undertaking, and either APNU is too naive to appreciate it, or too delusional or arrogant to accept the foolhardiness of its claim.
But, in this matter, APNU is anything but naïve. In a calculated way, it portrays itself as the victim of a rigged election. Victim is a loaded term, and its usage in this context may be intended to placate its supporters to whom it had fed so many lies while the nation awaited GECOM’s declaration. Or worse, it may be designed to feed the appetite of APNU’s supporters for undemocratic and unruly behaviour at the opportune time.
Like the doctor who is unable to see the difference between the pathological and physiological condition of his patient, APNU is hopelessly unable to distinguish between what is logical and what is irrational as it confronts its new position in the country. Blinded by ego and the lust for power, APNU continues to torment a nation and to abuse the legal provisions that the system provides. Rather than defy logic and cling to the irrational notion that it won the general election and that it has been cheated out of office, APNU should recognise the futility in its election petition. If it is serious about contributing to the growth of Guyana in a marked way as claimed, it should desist from these unproductive and disruptive actions.
Sincerely,
Zaida Ayube
