Dear Editor,
The Coalition is shadow boxing in semantics. While its Leader said or inferred the elections were free and fair and “orderly,” this does not mean the elections (the fraudulent acts of Clairmont Mingo aside) lacked credibility. The press reported that PNC member, Mr. Aubrey Norton, went further and said: “You can’t check credibility from what happened on Elections Day…” – published in a section of on the media on May 16.
Maybe this commonplace procedure is prohibited in Guyana. Otherwise, I will show that he is wrong or that Mr Norton is trying to mislead the public.
Credibility in elections speaks to whether electors are able to enjoy voting rights in an inclusive, open, and legitimate manner without any fundamental unfairness. The gravamen of credibility is rooted almost entirely in Election Day when voting actually occurs. Not the day before or after, as it is common for national elections to be completed in a day, during which time the issue of credibility is established. Here is an example to show Mr. Norton to be wrong.
During the historic US Presidential Elections held on November 4, 2008, which a then US Senator Barack Obama won, I was a representative of the Michigan Democratic Party and was stationed at a polling precinct in Lansing inswing-state Michigan. At 8 pm Eastern Time (ET) ballots were still tabulated manually due to problem with voting machines. By 9 pm ET it was all academic as everyone realized who would win. By 11 pm ET the loser conceded, the elections over.
Ours was not the only case of voting machines breaking down or of voters sent to the wrong precinct to vote because of late-hour redistricting (i.e., gerrymandering).These and other hiccups aside nationwide, the elections were regarded as free and fair.
Credibility was established before tabulation ended or without the losing candidate, US Senator John McCain, needing to use the word “credible.” Instead, in his concession speech he acknowledged gratitude “to the American people for giving me a fair hearing.” Yes, a “fair” hearing. No one said “you can’t check credibility from what happened” on Elections Day.
Elections are trials. As an aside, our courts worldwide tell each accused that they are entitled to a “fair” trial and it is recorded at law to be a “credible” or legitimate hearing. After his trial, the senator praised Senator Obama for inspiring African Americans “who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election….”
This is instructive to disenchanted and misled supporters of Mr. Norton’s party who are told elections do not serve their cause, and that they must now embrace manufactured leadership.
But equally important, Senator McCain said: “The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.” Here, the Guyanese people have likewise spoken clearly. Their spoken word is memorialized for posterity on all lawful SOPs affixed to polling stations giving original notice to the world. Mr. Norton cannot re-invent commonplace electoral procedure by juggling adjectives some two months after poll date to silence this spoken word.
While it is recognized that as modern elections evolved, the language used to describe same have become laden with adjectives (“transparent, ”credible,” “orderly,” “inclusive”) meant to act as safety measures against ballot tinkering, the all-encompassing phrase “free and fair” is still the gold standard to establish legitimate balloting.
As such, when the Coalition Leader says the elections were “free and fair,” he naturally meant they were “free” of disorderly conduct. His “orderly “comment, therefore, is repetitive and unnecessary unless it was strategically used to give Mr. Norton and friends an arm with which to shadow box in semantics if need be.
Sincerely,
Rakesh Rampertab
