The issue of who guards the guards

THE EDITOR: One of the main arguments being put forward against inviting election observers for local government elections is cost.

This is silly, since the cost of protecting democracy and determining who gets to control hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars is very much worth the cost. Especially as it most likely would be cheaper than the recent two-day regional crime symposium and the even more recent meeting of regional commissioners of police in Trinidad. What, if any, were the tangible benefits of these two forums for the average citizens?

The discussion itself, on whether we should have election observers, is really not the correct one. Discussion should really be about whether any government should have the ability to make such a determination in the first place.

It's important because if an administration has a nefarious plan, they get to say no to international observers who may unearth or expose said nefarious plan.

The ultimate issue of "who will guard the guards" arises here. The power of any government to refuse international, unbiased observers from a national poll flies in the face of democracy, is obscene and goes against the tenets of good governance.

One would have thought government would do everything possibly to allow for the process to be monitored by international observers to assure the population that the elections were indeed free and fair.

This is especially important since it took a ruling of the Privy Council to force Government's hand to call the elections – something which should have been done as soon as the constitutional life of the local government ended in December.

Perhaps more importantly than at any other time in our history, we need independent observers for this election.

Whoever leads our country in the future ought to have international observers for national polls as a standard feature of the election process to better safeguard democracy.

TIM TEEMAL

St James