All systems now seem set for the upcoming November 12, Local Government Elections (LGE). On Nomination Day, September 21, 2018, the three parliamentary parties, other smaller ones, community groups and individuals contesting as independents, presented relevant documentation confirming their intention to participate.
What it means is that across the country, thousands of Guyanese will be contesting for the various seats within the municipalities and the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDC). These will include first timers and some who are already in the system.
The LGE offers an opportunity for individuals and groups at the village level to serve with the expectation of implementing meaningful projects designed to improve the infrastructure – for those which they have jurisdiction over – within the communities. For those which they don’t, they have to get the responsible authorities to effect the necessary intervention for the benefit of the residents. It is also an opportunity to help raise community moral and foster social cohesion.
The candidates are drawn from within the constituencies thereby bringing authenticity of knowledge of problems and in most cases, solutions. The underlying goal is for the elected Councillors to genuinely work together for the improvement of the communities regardless of representative group or party. Very often this is easier said than done for different reasons, including partisanship and highhandedness which have seemingly plagued some, especially the Georgetown Mayor and City Council (M&CC) over the years.
Currently, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is engaged in the necessary verification process and will soon reveal the final and official lists of those contesting. Nothing major is expected to change from what has already been submitted judging from the past, barring glaring cases which may not have met the nomination requirements.
Over the last few days, many allegations of electoral related transgressions were reported. In some constituencies, residents were allegedly duped into signing different backers’ forms. Persons affiliated to the Opposition made some of these revelations and a separate report alleges that a few residents were misled into signing for house lots. Such lure is hard to resist especially when it is convincingly delivered by those with a sinister motive.
The requirement is that a backer, someone who signs a prescribed form in support of a particular candidate, can only do so once. With GECOM declaring that any repetition of names after the lists submitted first are verified, can lead to the possible disqualification of the candidate from the list presented second. That may explain the reported jostle to be the first presenter in some areas.
They were reports of representatives of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), who allegedly turned up second but were allowed in first, aided, reportedly, by some GECOM staff. From all reports, persons camped out overnight but were displaced as noted. Another report alleges that a Policeman, who tried to ensure a first-come first-serve basis, was reportedly overruled by GECOM staff in favour of APNU representatives ahead of those from the People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
If there is any truth to these reports, it would be demonstrative of a worrying relationship between some staff of GECOM and some who represent the largest party in the coalition Government. Still there are other allegations of forged signatures on backers’ form for some candidates of APNU, the Alliance For Change (AFC) and the United Republican Party (URP).
This newspaper carried a report that the signatures of a dead woman, six persons living overseas, eighteen who claim they did not sign a form and a man who cannot read or write, appeared on a list for an AFC’s candidate in Berbice. Again, these constitute transgression of electoral laws.
Following these revelations, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, posited the need for GECOM to strengthened penalties for such transgressions. What GEOCM would need to do immediately is to launch an impartial investigation into the alleged partisanship demonstrated by some of its staff on Nomination Day and the findings made public with the chips made to fall where they should. Similarly, if forged signatures, including that of the dead, are found following the verification process, persons responsible for those lists must be held accountable.
GECOM has an absolute responsibility to ensure that the elections and its related processes are transparent so that integrity is not compromised. In this regard, some level of confidence may have been lost since it is already on its back foot following the controversial unilateral appointment of its Chairman and the appointment of someone without experience and who scored less in the recruitment process as the Deputy Chief Elections Officer (DCEO).
In these circumstances, GECOM would be expected to spare no effort to ensure its credibility does not wane and to repair where necessary. These transgressions, if not investigated and actions instituted where necessary, would be extremely detrimental to confidence and credibility in GECOM for the General and Regional Elections constitutionally due in 2020. If nothing is done, then the challenges towards the 2020 ballot would have already been exacerbated.
