There are no publicly articulated guidelines for engaging civil society in the compilation of the Gecom list

Dear Editor,

I wish to thank Mr Clement J. Rohee for his letter (SN June 9) in response to mine (SN June 8) which discussed the Gecom chairman selection process. Mr Rohee admonished me for introducing a dimension which others avoided, tried to justify the flawed lists by citing the imbalance in appointments made by the government and declared the lists pure because of the involvement of civil society.

Firstly, I wish to assure Mr Rohee that I gave the matter considerable thought before penning my letter. The sleight of hand was immediately obvious when I saw the first list, but I did not think it prudent to raise the issue. I held my hand even after noting the same devious tactic with the second list. However, when I reviewed the nominees submitted by Mr Desmond Hoyte and noted the

pattern of selection established since 1994 I felt compelled to put the issue forward for public debate. It is my opinion that in a multi-ethnic society it is permissible and necessary to discuss how race and ethnicity impact and are impacted by various policies and programmes. However, one proviso must be that the debate is void of vitriol.

Mr Rohee’s directive for me to “… look at the total picture with respect to appointments to top positions in government entities …” is a clear attempt to justify the PPP’s sleight of hand. However, he cannot use this justification for the PPP’s policy and at the same time claim he wants to avoid the “dimension.” Further, if he wants to use this justification he should first explain the PPP’s policy in selecting the Gecom chairman since 1994. I view Mr Rohee’s failure to respond to or even acknowledge this point raised by me as a tacit acknowledgement of the existence of such a policy. Mr. Rohee must now tell us why he feels it is okay for the PPP to pursue this policy.

The case for civil society management of elections in Guyana was critically damaged by Mr Rohee. He tried to sugar-coat the two flawed lists by pointing to the involvement of civil society. This now raises two fundamental questions. Did civil society knowingly take part in a process that recommended Dr James Rose, Maj Gen (rtd) Norman McLean, Ms Rhyaan Shaw, and Mr Ramesh Dookhoo? Did they genuinely think that these names would have been acceptable to President Granger or were they in on the PPP strategy of loading the list with straw candidates? Even if the PPP merely conducted superficial consultations then went ahead to produce its own list, why did civil society not sound an alarm and distance itself from the list and the process? This episode has tarnished civil society and undermined its credibility. Could we trust civil society to act in a fair and impartial manner?

I have noted Mr Rohee’s claim that the list is not Mr Jagdeo’s list but is civil society’s list. This distinction is central to the PPP claim that this is a sacrosanct list that the President is compelled to accept. However, absent a constitutional defined process to engage civil society this is nothing more than a concocted effort to dilute the constitutionally derived authority of the President to make a choice. As far as I am aware there are no publicly articulated guidelines for this engagement of civil society. What were the criteria used for selecting organizations to consult? What was the method used for soliciting nominations from the organizations? What process was used to prune the list to arrive at the final six names?

I have noted that Mr Jagdeo has agreed to submit a third list. I hope on this occasion he works genuinely to identify six persons who he believes will be acceptable to President Granger and who also enjoy his confidence. Yours faithfully, James McAllister