Dithering over democracy

MUCH MORE is at stake when it comes to the Guyana election than just the fate of lucrative oil and gas resources. This is a test of the country’s democracy. The signs are not good.

From the beginning, on Monday’s election day, ominous clouds began to gather. While President David Granger expressed hope his country would be a “beacon of democratic rectitude,” voters in some regions were lodging complaints about receiving misleading information and lengthy lines.

The lack of a clear timeline for results, followed by the drip-feed of those results from the Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom), served only to deepen suspicion, even if a few stakeholders saw little to be concerned about.

The mixed assessment is itself a sign that all is not well. The Carter Centre declared political parties had access to the process, it was transparent, rules were followed, and the degree of time for the emergence of the results – whatever they may turn out to be – had caused no concern.

In stark contrast, the European Union (EU) Election Observation Mission lamented vote-buying of indigenous communities and the use of state resources for private political gain by the two major political groups. Also taking a more long-term view was the Caricom Election Observation Mission which, alongside the Commonwealth team lead by former Barbados prime minister Owen Arthur, called for reform.

“Guyana is still in the same situation electorally as it was all those years ago,” lamented head of the Caricom observation team Cynthia Combie-Martyr. “It seems to me that they would have to go back to the basics because obviously what they have been doing is not working.”

The delay in the results has proved this observation correct. And it raised serious questions over the management of the country.

Monday’s election had been delayed and delayed at the hands of Granger’s administration. It should not be forgotten this poll was triggered by the shock result of a 2018 vote of no confidence. After lengthy litigation, which looked more like a delaying tactic than anything else, the election was postponed even further as Granger said Gecom, whose chairman resigned, needed more time.

What Gecom was doing all this time is now clear for all to see. The withering assessment of Caricom, the slow count, the election day complaints, coupled with the bad blood after Granger’s foreign affairs minister mishandled a meeting with Commonwealth observers do not appear to be “democratic rectitude.” If it is we would hate to see what is not.

With slender margins a feature of Guyana politics, it is already hard enough for parties to govern. Worse yet with an election system not working as well as it should in an era of fast-paced technology. Put simply, no matter who wins, Guyana must do better if it is to emerge from this process truly victorious.