Dear Editor,
The prolonged electoral crisis in Guyana has the potential to leave our country in isolation.
Members and supporters of the rigging incumbent party, A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) coalition, have continuously undermined Guyana’s democratic principles for close to five months now. Their actions have subverted the will of the Guyanese electorate, and have put our country at risk of sanctions from Western allies and suspension from key international and regional organisations; such as the Organisation of American States (OAS), the Commonwealth of Nations, and the Caribbean Community (Caricom).
The actions and defiant utterances of members and supporters of the coalition have tested the patience of Western powers and regional institutions to the extent that, on July 15, the United States Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, announced visa restrictions imposed on them.
GECOM Chair, Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, has since barred Lowenfield from using any figure other than the Recount tally approved by election observers. Not only are these figures widely accepted, but Guyana’s highest court, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), indicated on July 8 that Lowenfield must comply with Singh’s directions to produce a report using only said numbers.
However, it has regrettably become commonplace in Guyana that, not only has Lowenfield not complied with these directions, but a supporter of the coalition filed an injunction with the country’s High Court, seeking to block a declaration of the results based on the Recount. The injunction had little standing in the High Court, given that the CCJ had already ruled that GECOM can proceed using Recount figures to declare the PPP/C the elections winner.
However, subsequent to this ruling, the APNU+AFC supporter filed an appeal with Guyana’s Court of Appeal. Thus, the coalition, through its supporters, continues to abuse the judicial system, using injunctions and appeals to delay an official ruling — its last attempt to stay in power.
The events that played out here in Guyana have not gone unnoticed in the international community. Over the course of Guyana’s elections crisis, the United States and other Western powers, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, have called for an acceptance of the Recount results, and have threatened sanctions if the democratic will of Guyanese people is not respected.
Thus far, the U.S. announcement of visa restrictions has kick-started the process, and the United Kingdom and Canada are expected to follow suit.
There is no shortage of statements from countries as well as respected international persons and organisations, calling for David Granger and his caretaker Government to concede. These messages were notably reverberated at the recent Organisation of American States’ (OAS’) Permanent Council meeting on July 21, called by Secretary General Luis Almagro.
Like other foreign actors, the OAS has condemned Lowenfield’s actions, and implied, through its citation of Article 1 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, that the incumbent has not fulfilled its obligation to promote and defend democracy in the Americas.
Not only could Guyana face suspension from the OAS following the incumbent’s actions, but it could face the same fate from the Commonwealth. Suspension from these organisations would damage the international reputation of Guyana almost beyond repair.
Also, former Jamaica Prime Minister Bruce Golding has recently said that even if the electoral crisis ended immediately, it would take institutional change and more than a generation to rebuild Guyana’s image within the international community.
Beyond these organisations, members and supporters of the coalition should be most worried about the recent comments from Caricom Chair and Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Dr Ralph Gonsalves. As the most senior Caricom leader, whose words carry heavily and widely in the Caribbean. Gonsalves argued that the Community will not be indifferent or detached from Guyana’s situation.
CARICOM remains, according to Granger, “the most legitimate interlocutor”, as well as its most invested.
The statement of Prime Minister Gonsalves, which echoes those of current and former Caribbean leaders, has been called out as foreign interference by the APNU+AFC. However, while the coalition demands respect for Guyanese sovereignty, the Government is party to international, regional, and bilateral agreements, many built around ideas of democracy and intended to hold Guyanese leaders responsible if democratic principles are not respected.
Sovereignty now is a convenient fig leaf for democratic malpractice. To stave off further actions from foreign powers, the immediate solution is for the David Granger Government to concede defeat. This is unlikely, as coalition members and supporters will likely unify and dig in their heels even more as more foreign pressure is applied.
For these reasons, the international community should continue supporting local actors, specifically the will of the Guyanese people, who have, in the face of electoral turmoil, remained peaceful and committed to democracy. Nonetheless, these same people could face the repercussions of the APNU/AFC actions as that party exhausts the patience of Guyana’s allies.
It is time for common sense and common decency to prevail, and time for the incumbent and his coalition to put the nation above self and party. While Guyana possesses the potential to become a leading petroleum producer and experience unimaginable economic growth, leading some analysts to claim it could be the next Qatar, there are fears it isn’t adequately equipped to manage such a monumental oil boom.
Recent events point to Guyana being a risky and unstable jurisdiction, being mired in a political crisis which emerged from the disputed March 2020 election. The longevity of the unresolved crisis could lead to an illegitimate government being in office. Governments such as the APNU/AFC Administration are more likely to engage in unscrupulous activities, as well as implement highly bureaucratic legal and regulatory frameworks that can be easily compromised, facilitating corruption.
We all are aware of the long history of weak government institutions of the PNC/PNCR – the APNU/AFC, as they now call themselves; and the lack of transparency relative to the award of petroleum licences and related profit-sharing agreements is already ringing alarm bells.
Sincerely,
David Adams
