Granger has aroused the suspicion of Guyanese voters in relation to the Gecom chairmanship
Dear Editor, The identification and selection of a suitably qualified and competent individual to serve as Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom) must concern all Guyanese regardless of their political preference. We must ensure that the electoral wrongs of the 1970s and 1980s are never repeated and the political and democratic gains of the period October 1992 to May 2015 are not undermined or jeopardized.
Section 161(2) of our revised Constitution clearly sets out the eligibility requirement and the process that must be followed in the selection of the individual who will have to shoulder the responsibility of overseeing Guyana’s electoral machinery and personnel. It is imperative that the APNU+AFC government and the opposition PPP agree on who should be given this task. Both parties must have confidence and trust in the individual’s ability to discharge the duties of the office with diligence, impartiality, independence and honesty. Any attempt to undermine the process as set out in the Constitution would only undermine public confidence in the fairness of future elections regardless of assurances that they were transparent. This can result in political chaos. No amount of political machinations must be allowed to cloud or corrupt the clear language of the Constitution.
There are a significant number who believe that the President will reject every list submitted by the Opposition Leader irrespective of the qualifications, experience and attributes possessed by the candidates proposed by Mr Jagdeo, as the President has already identified his own candidate and is determined to unilaterally appoint him/her as Gecom Chairman. The President has to prove us wrong.
Indeed, the President’s announcement that he has rejected the Opposition Leader’s list of six nominees for consideration to be appointed Gecom Chairman because the constitutional preference is for a judge or former judge must of itself be considered unacceptable by all Guyanese. Our constitution does not limit the eligibility requirement to a judge or former judge or someone with judge like attributes, but allows also for the consideration of “any other fit and proper person”. The characteristics of the Gecom Chairman as outlined by the President are not only almost impossible to find, but go outside of the requirements as set out in the Constitution.
The process and arrangement for selecting and appointing the Gecom Chairman has worked well from 1992 until now. Ambassador Rudy Collins was followed by Senior Council Mr Doodnauth Singh, who was himself succeeded by Maj Gen (ret’d) Joseph Singh. Mr Singh’s successor was Dr Steve Surujbally, who has now resigned. All were on lists of nominees submitted by the PNCR when in opposition. Recall that none of them was a serving or former judge while two of these lists did include the name of David Granger; not a judge or former judge or person possessing judge-like qualities.
Mr Jagdeo’s second list of nominees came out of extensive consultation with civil society, though not a requirement of our Constitution, but in the interest of our democracy. It does include several former judges and a practising attorney at law, all of whom were obviously rejected by the President as being unsuitable.
If the stalemate in the appointment of a Gecom Chairman does lead to the unilateral appointment of a Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission, all that thousands of the Guyanese people have successfully fought for and won in terms of electoral gains will be placed in serious jeopardy. Even now I ask myself what is the motive behind the government’s determination to reinterpret specific sections of the Constitu-tion, more especially the sections that deal with election matters. In short, why does the APNU+AFC government refuse to take such measures repeatedly recommended by the opposition which would most certainly improve the livelihoods of the Guyanese people and obviously enhance their chances at the next general elections in 2020?
The President’s intent is obviously to unilaterally appoint a Chairman of his choice to head Gecom. Furthermore, he may have, in all probability, identified this person. But it must not be that the President can simply reject the names and the recommendations of the Leader of the Opposition arising out of the several consultations with civil society and choose and appoint someone of his choice without offering some explanation re his refusal to concur with the choice of the opposition. Isn’t it obvious that this opens the way to partisanship? The Constitution does not preclude persons other than judges from being named and appointed as Chairman of Gecom.
No President from Hoyte to Ramotar has refused to name someone from the list submitted by the opposition. In fact, prior to this present government, the political leaders went through the process of appointing a Chairman of Gecom with relative ease, within the spirit and intent of the framers of the Constitution and devoid of any conflict. In the process, the expectations of a majority of the Guyanese people were met.
We owe it to ourselves and our children to ensure our Constitution is followed. The President must sit with the Opposition Leader, and discuss and agree on a candidate. At present Mr Granger has only succeeded in arousing the suspicion of a significant number of the Guyanese voters with respect to his intention and agenda on this important electoral matter.
Yours faithfully, Norman Whittaker Former Minister of Local Government which makes the party the oldest political party in Guyana and among the oldest in the Commonwealth Caribbean”. Given the way the historic political narrative has unfolded and the PPP’s propaganda since the ʼ50s, the average Guyanese has the erroneous view that the PPP was the first political party in the country. While Mr Ally did not say so explicitly and, since I have respectfully attributed to him the noble intention of educating the public and more so the younger generation, on our political history, I hope he will reciprocate by responding to the following questions I now pose to him:. (1) Is he saying that the PPP is the oldest surviving party in Guyana? or (2) is he implying that the PPP was the first political party in Guyana?
My knowledge of developments on the political landscape in Guyana informs me that the PPP is not the first political party in the country, neither is it the first party to sweep the pools (landslide electoral victory) nor is it the first to be neutralized/robbed of electoral victory by the British colonial power. The claim to that position belongs to the little known Popular Party (PP) which in the 1926 elections won 12 of the 14 seats up for grabs. This success was determined by the colonial powers to be unacceptable, and measures were taken to ensure that the party did not exercise political power based on its victory. The British ensured that through the courts the Popular Party lost 5 seats on the grounds of technicalities.
In keeping with the need for public political education I refer here to another issue raised in Ally’s letter. He mentioned a recommendation made by the Robertson Commission and pointed out that it called for the, “communists and hardliners” in the PPP to be removed and the “moderate” elements be put in control of the party. In the latter part of his letter Mr Ally stated, “… Suffice it to say that both the British and American administrations badly miscalculated in their assessment and characterization of Dr Jagan and the PPP in terms of ideological orientation and political philosophy.” The obvious question for Mr Hydar Ally to answer is this: Was Dr Jagan at the time of the incident at reference a Marxist/Leninist and a Communist?
Yours faithfully, Tacuma Ogunseye