There is a cliché that refers to perception morphing into reality. This would have been known and probably tested throughout time and often a source of contention in politics. Some of what transpired during the 2015 elections campaign would have brought it sharply into focus, testing believability almost to the point of confirming it in some instances. One of its unfortunate derivatives is the superimposing of what is supposed to be unreal over what is; in other words, fiction over fact.
This obviously has advantages and disadvantages for different sides one way or the other and with any shift in mindsets probably remaining long-lasting. It therefore becomes a monumental challenge for facts to become believable in such circumstances. A cursory look at some aspects of international politics can easily substantiate, as fake news insidiously enters the realm of reality.
In every circumstance, it appears to be fast becoming more laborious for believability. In the process, sometimes sensitivities, individually and nationally, can be exacerbated thereby increasing the potential to negatively broadside societal social fabric. The dilemma created in such situations demands an uncompromising and transparent approach to verify and convey facts to mitigate the possible raising of tensions. This becomes even more necessary in a pluralistic society like ours.
As discussions over the employment practices at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) continue throughout society, clearly one section can be made to feel aggrieved based upon information within the public domain. Like everything else, there are two sides; however, our multifaceted makeup would demand an urgent ascertaining of the facts. Given the important role GECOM plays, the need for such an intervention is paramount.
For many, if not all, the result of an election is pivotal to their advancement in the future. For a nation, it can have tremendous bearing on its stability and by extension the economy, international credibility while impacting confidence. If the citizenry or a section of it develops a lack of confidence in the election machinery, then credibility in the process could become a major issue with its own spin-off effects.
The initial controversy at GECOM over its perceived employment practices led to some statistics and charts appearing in the media. While it may have provided a different perspective, it may not have changed the perception given, reportedly, concerns over source and accuracy. What subsequently transpired with regard to the appointment of the Deputy Chief Elections Officer, (DCEO), may have further incensed sentiments over an already sensitive situation.
From what was reported, the candidate, who scored the highest and who would have had three years on the job experience, was not appointed. When ethnicity is thrown into the milieu, it further heightens the perception of unfairness. This is not to say that the person appointed is not qualified, however the finality of the appointment process would have provided fodder to those who remain convinced of unfairness.
With the general tendency that one thing can lead to another, for those who are fortified in their belief of unfairness, it is not farfetched to posit that they can lose confidence in the electoral process regardless of perception or reality of the current situation. That’s the unfortunate potential the situation can precipitate.
When other circumstances, such as alleged reports of mass firing based on ethnicity after the 2015 elections and the seeming unabated imposition of a particular party colour on public buildings and through other means, ethnic and political sensitivities can be offended.
Cleary our leaders and civil society cannot be oblivious of this, especially given our history. Therefore, the lack of or delay in a meaningful intervention to ascertain the facts on GECOM employment practices will contribute little or nothing to remove any perception of unfairness. It can also, fairly or unfairly, question commitment of the authorities to so intervene for the national good.
To establish the Social Cohesion Ministry, the Administration must have been aware of the compelling reasons to do so, guided by history, perception and reality. One can therefore safely posit that the need to mitigate ethnic sensitivities, more than likely premised on reality, would have been the foremost consideration for the Social Cohesion Ministry and for it to receive taxpayers’ funding to deliver its mandate of promoting national harmony.
With that in mind, it would not be unfair to expect a fact-finding intervention into GECOM’s employment practice, which in reality should have already been implemented. This is extremely crucial, not only in the quest to realise social cohesion, but for confidence in the nation’s electoral machinery. If partisanship through alleged political allegiance were to develop in the electoral machinery, the creation of suspicion over questionable elections could be moved from perception to reality.
In the interest of national unity, that intervention must be immediate and meaningful and not just for the purpose of mere appeasement. Its absence would not help the social complexities and could unfortunately and undesirably redound to a loss in democratic gains. That could be a result of perception morphing into reality.
