GECOM must step up and deliver LGE in free and fair manner

Dear Editor,
The concretisation of the PPP/C’s commitment to supporting scheduled Local Government Elections (LGE) in 2021 has been appropriately represented in the National Assembly by Nigel Dharamlall, Minister of Local Government. It follows public statements made on behalf of the Government by the Hon Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh, President Dr Irfaan Ali, and Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo.
Unquestionably, there is no need for redress, and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) must step up to deliver the 2021 LGE in an unprecedentedly free and fair manner. Without any doubt, several remedial changes are required towards such delivery, given the disappointing depths of eroded confidence to which GECOM has fallen.
Evidence of cross-cutting, biased positions taken by the justifiably condemned Chief Elections Officer demands immediate fixes; which MUST commence now, since any result with the current culprits are likely to result in confusion and recounts, wasting taxpayers’ money.
Several other areas which necessitate review, or possibly clearer policy, are presented hereinafter for consideration. Attention and possible revisit must be given to the increasing number of Local Authority Areas (Municipalities/NDC) for which there was no consultation with the then main Opposition party. In many instances, the outcome was an inadequacy of councillors’ representation for a specific area, although there had previously been approved constituencies that were published in the Official Gazette. This occurred particularly in areas where a significant demographic shift of population occurred due to the PPP/C housing drive. Some newly sub-divided constituencies now bear a significant imbalance of the number of residents and distance assigned to one candidate competing to be elected as councillor against the other. A more equitable system is required.
The gerrymandering, impromptu shifting of existing boundaries by the GECOM CEO, which cut across divisions and sub-divisions, has created a nightmare for not only the voters who previously attended certain polling stations, but also for the position that informs the support of specific candidates to be backed for elections as councillors.
Often, when a boundary is capriciously shifted, particularly in new development locations, the description of the boundaries placed in the Gazette is inconsistent with any specific ground with markings. For transparency, GECOM needs to do much better in this respect.
In the creation of new divisions and sub-divisions, the boundaries defining the previously established positions come in to question, bringing to the fore queries in regard to legitimacy. This is because, within the existing regional structure, divisions/sub-divisions are already legally created and published in the Gazette. Further, the newly created areas are placed in the Gazette without any regard to the changes and their effect on the previously defined positions.
In context, I would argue that the creation of new divisions and sub-divisions may be done administratively to facilitate the elections, but should not be considered as new, unless legally approved as part of the Regional structure.
Another area of concern is the condition under which proxies are issued, which are often the subject of abuse; and the time to correct the misnomer, when discovered, is not sufficient. Reassessment of the applicable verification procedures is necessary.
The casting of ‘lots’ as a solution to resolving issues of ties at LGEs is not readily accepted by most contestants involved in these elections. A more equitable remedy, rather than the option of chance, should therefore be implemented.
Also, the process for replacing a councillor in case of death or continuous absence should be driven by total constituency voting specifics. In this respect, in the case of someone who is elected as an individual rather than on a party slate, consideration should be given to the following:
a. Conducting a by-election
b. Selecting the candidate who had secured the next highest number of votes in the constituency
c. Mutual agreement by the general council of elected counsellors on an individual from the contestants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in preparation for the upcoming LGEs, interested stakeholder organisations, individuals, and political parties are urged to consider the requirements of communities in the various constituencies and Local Government areas. We must recognise the advancement of the standard of services required to mirror the pace of development, which more likely would be moving exponentially under this PPP/C Government. Likewise, community leaders must be able to provide initiatives that would catalyse a partnership to influence the parallel development of our Local Government areas.
Consequently, the selection of candidates should satisfy the conditions identified, considering the adequacy of representation in terms of gender and ethnic balance; an untarnished character within our laws; reputation, suitability, relationship with the community; availability and capacity to serve and perform, together with knowledge of community structure.
Continued improvements and partnerships are what we must strive for, once GECOM uphold their responsibilities and deliver a free and fair LGE.

Sincerely,
Neil Kumar