Dear Editor,
The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is the premier constitutional institution assigned the core functional oversight responsibility of heralding fair and balanced approaches to the achievement of democratic ideals. The autonomy afforded the organisation under the circumstances is certainly necessary, and ought to be utilised prudently to prevent attempts by stakeholders to influence power.
Notwithstanding, the availability of such scope should never be misused, abused, or exercised to express anyone’s individual or otherwise prejudiced fantasies. The intent, therefore, has to be utilised in a manner that protects and ensures accurate expression of our nation’s will, and, as far as is practicable, be continuously responsive to acceptable transparency measures.
Contrary to this intention, however, we have increasingly witnessed very disturbing obscene and attitudinal dispositions and behavioural trends emerging from many appointed principals of GECOM. Perhaps they may have taken queue from the embattled and now resigned, Dr Steve Surujbally, under whose tenure the organisation had become increasingly tainted.
The ongoing audit investigations suggest that many improprieties had been conducted by persons in the current leadership, who come over as partisan; who seem not to care, even amid the most damning critiques of independent observers and key stakeholders. The situation necessitates a balanced cleansing and strengthening going forward, and the time is most opportune.
We contend that, in the interest of all citizens and towards establishing the central pillar for good governance, the operations of GECOM must, therefore, NOT continue to be veiled in such unresponsive and suspicious undercurrents!! But that answers and reasonableness emanating from the organisation MUST reflect credence and virtue.
There are many scenarios which justify the aforementioned examination, or rather demand the outlined interventions. Our columnists have, over and over, provided many facts-based pronouncements to evidence the threat that GECOM has become. A few of those used herein will highlight the confusion and conundrum that are being realised.
GECOM recently announced April 24 to May 21, 2017 as the commencement and conclusion dates of the claims and objection exercises, after the 9th cycle of continuous registration would have concluded on March 18, 2017.
The period indicated above for the second phase of the exercise is approximately five weeks after claims and objections are scheduled to commence. The situation so far bares a plethora of obvious suspicious questions which are unanswered. Among these are:
1. Why the delay?
2. Was the Elections Commission not prepared?
In the first place, the relevance of the continuous registration being done at this time, in the absence of an upcoming election, was questionable, and the matter was raised without any adequate response from GECOM.
Currently, the political parties and the nation are yet to receive a report on the transactions that were completed, including registrations done, transfers done, and changes done at each GECOM offices in the country.
We wait, but when would the report be available? GECOM appears to be doing everything within its authority to block information from reaching the public, thus implying that the body is not obligated by law to provide certain information, according to a release from Chief Elections Officer Lowenfield to the People’s Progressive Party.
While the laws may be silent on the issue, they do not restrict the release of timely and genuinely required information. Additionally, it is implicit that certain measures can be applied mutually to inform all stakeholders, since the current blockading approach serves as a counter to making things easier for compliance, and mirrors a dark image regarding what is happening behind the scenes. 
In the least, the Secretariat, while not being mandatorily obligated to release some details, has partnered with and accommodated scrutineers from political parties and stakeholder groups. It is very reasonable that associated summary data be timely released to these political parties and groups.
Additionally, the many doubts surrounding the partisan performances of the Elections Commission of recent demand that the organisation should come clean and give the public a general sense of renewed confidence that it’s moving to improve its performance and image by operating above board. What better way can there be than to disseminate publicly the information on the transactions report?
Notably, GECOM has published in the printed media the authority for the registration exercise. This Order (#2 of 2017), dated February 28, 2017, was signed by the former Chairman. One cannot help but wonder why Dr Surujbally would sign an order wherein the schedule is set out (between April 15 and June 3), if there was not premeditation.
Additionally, there are reports of exorbitant spending by the elections body for the registration period. Many vehicles were rented and hired beforehand, yet many special taxis still had to be utilised. It was also reported that water and air transportation costs were deliberately inflated and exceeded the planned budget, and meals and meals allowances were costly.
Continuous registration is a necessity, but one must ask of GECOM if the services provided for the foregone exercise could be considered proper value for money. If that question is put to the public, the answer would certainly be NO.
Also noticeable during the registration exercise was the treatment of the public by some of the so-called trained GECOM staff.
Some officers were guilty of being rude and disrespectful to persons wanting to do transactions; young registrants were bullied, and some were even asked to leave buildings for being inappropriately dressed, whereas others were allowed in despite wearing similar attire. The young registrants that are perceived to be PPP, especially girls, faced the brunt of some GECOM officers’ actions. It was quite disgusting that in numerous cases, persons left GECOM centres, never to return, because of the officers’ attitude.
Some of the PPP scrutineers faced the same treatment, and many accepted what was meted out to them as they wanted to remain in the centres to prevent the officers from committing any intended skulduggery.
That was how well the registration exercise was conducted. GECOM, under the current structure, needs to be balanced now.
Sincerely,
Neil Kumar
