Consultation

In November last year the government finally unveiled its reforms for the electoral system in the shape of The Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill. It gave six weeks for consultation, a period which has now expired. It does not appear that it wanted to listen to, let alone take on board any criticisms, since those civil society organisations which did advance proposals were promptly dismissed by either the PPP/C or its associates in their customary abrasive fashion. These groups included the Guyana Human Rights Association, the Electoral Reform Group and the more recently established Article 13.

Where the latter is concerned Attorney General Anil Nandlall accused it of calling for a restructuring of the political system, which it has denied. It was a misplaced accusation at a minimum, since while the electoral system which concerned Article 13 in this instance is one element of the political system, the two are not the same. Certainly the government for its part could not be accused of serious reform of the electoral system, added to which its adjustments have been confined to the Representation of the People Act, something which it can use its majority to amend whether the opposition likes it or not. It has not taken on the more fundamental electoral reforms which have been called for over the years, some of which would require constitutional changes and the cooperation of APNU+AFC.

The purpose of the amendments, the public was told, was to prevent a recurrence of the events which followed the March 2nd election of 2020 and the abortive attempt to rig the results. At their most basic they entail the imposition of higher penalties for election offences as well as new offences which carry draconian sanctions involving millions in fines and life imprisonment. Then there is the restructuring of Region Four into four electoral districts as well as the establishing of the offices which would be necessary for this.

As we pointed out last year these changes will do nothing to close the political divide and will probably make it worse. Pursuing them in isolation from the larger reforms which are necessary “misses the point of March 2020 and the decades of political confrontation,” we wrote in a leader in November.

In its submission to Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira, ANUG which is one of three parties holding a joinder seat in the National Assembly said among other things that the failure in the system in 2020 was not legislative but practical. Only the two large parties and Gecom had copies of all Statements of Poll, so that allegations made by each against the other could not be verified independently. This could be rectified, the party suggested, if a mechanism existed for the media and the public to access the Statements of Poll electronically as they were created by the Presiding Officer at each place of poll.

Along with some other groups, including the ERG, it was also critical of the proposed provision involving the sub-division of Region Four. Any

amendment to the Act, said ANUG, should require Gecom to create sub-districts in all the ten electoral districts (which correspond to regions) so that the total number of voters in any sub-district did not exceed 75,000.

All the groups were critical of the sanctions given in the draft, the ERG maintaining they would have a deterrent effect in terms of attracting quality personnel to positions necessary for conducting elections. They were also objectionable, said the reform group, when compared to penalties for other crimes such as murder and domestic abuse.

Article 13 was similarly concerned saying they could have a “chilling effect on the willingness of citizens to serve for a paltry sum as clerks on election day.” ANUG pointed to the “disproportionate” nature of the penalties and the fact that often strict liability was applied “so that an innocent mistake can result in criminal sanctions.” The ERG drew attention to the fact that sections in the Act dealing with influencing the decision of an elector and interfering with electors in the approach to a polling place had not attracted an increase in penalties, and wondered why.

All the groups at one level or another advocated the strengthening of the constituency system, while campaign financing and the reintroduction of Independents in the National Assembly were a source of comment for Article 13. There were various other useful proposals from one or another of the groups, including innovative ideas about the voters’ list from ANUG, but none of them omitted to stress the necessity of reforming Gecom.

If the government has hardly welcomed proposals on electoral reform deriving from local sources, it has been more cordial in its responses to foreign entities which have made offers of help on the matter. It was no less a person than the AG who met with the UNDP Resident Representative in October of 2020 to discuss electoral reform, while in March of last year the EU Electoral Observer Mission returned with the aim of kick-starting the process. Among various other things reform of the constitution as it related to the composition of Gecom was recommended, with the EU proposing a national consultation process.

The following month it was announced that Mr Nandlall had requested assistance from Canada on electoral reform, along with other things, but it was in May that the public was informed the US Department of State was supporting an eighteenmonth project to enhance the capacity of Gecom and the AG’s Chambers in respect of electoral processes, and to encourage civil society organisations to advocate for electoral reform in consonance with regional and international standards. The implementing agency, said the US Embassy, later confirmed by the AG, would be the International Republican Institute, and the public was also told that the Institute had committed to liaise with the Canadian and Indian High Commissions which had already pledged assistance in this area. The announcement caused an outcry largely because of the earlier associations of the IRI and the lack of consultation with the opposition and civil society. All that can be said is that it is difficult to believe the current proposed changes to the Representation of the People Act are the product of any foreign input.

Whatever the case, as mentioned earlier Freedom House wasted no time in responding to the local criticisms: “Needless to say … it is downright naive for anyone to think that such a process can be undertaken without the input of the major opposition political party in Guyana. The law reforms must be done through the parliament and the opposition will have an input both in and out of parliament.” It went on to comment that it was not surprised by APNU+AFC’s objections, because the PNC historically had always been opposed to reform that would “enhance Guyana’s democratic structure.” They would prefer a weak system which they could pervert.

Well now it is in opposition maybe not. Last week the PNCR said it welcomed the suggestion by ERG that there was a need for restructuring Gecom as well as other reforms. The body did not put forward specific proposals in relation to reform of the Commission; what it said was: “GECOM as currently constituted is dysfunctional and prone to deadlock… The proposed amendments [in the Representation of the People Act] fail to address fundamental GECOM reforms needed to improve the institution’s functioning and without which there can be no serious electoral reform.”

Where the PNCR is concerned this is a breakthrough, since together with the PPP/C it has turned its face against any changes to the structure of the Elections Commission despite endless appeals to do so from local and other sources. The present format, known as the Carter-Price formula, was instituted as a temporary measure for the purposes of the 1992 election. Dysfunctional as it was it nevertheless became entrenched in the Constitution because the two major parties could not agree on anything more rational. Well it seems the PNCR has shifted its stance, and the pressure is now on the PPP/C to do likewise. It remains to be seen how long it will be able to hold out against the main opposition party and articulate civil society groups. It may agree to change in principle, and then find means to procrastinate indefinitely.

As far as the other reforms suggested by the ERG go, the PNCR statement said that while there were areas of disagreement, many of the proposals were acceptable, and that since the group regarded dialogue as important in the resolution of problems, there was space for those areas of disagreement to be addressed. This too is a kind of breakthrough, in so far as one of the major parties appears to be moving outside the closeted world of politics to entertain meaningful discussions on admittedly structural governance issues with a civil society body. If the PNCR genuinely starts talking to independent, nonpolitical groups, critical or not, and taking on board at least some of what they have to say, that too would put Freedom House somewhat out on a limb. It will have to be seen whether the country’s largest opposition party will really go down this new track.

In the meantime, several of the groups have called for an extension of the consultation period. It might be noted that the government set up no forum for dialogue with critics of the draft Representation of the People Bill; they have merely collected written submissions which have disappeared into the usual bureaucratic black hole. Are Mr Nandlall and Ms Teixeira, for example, afraid to face their critics and answer some of the public’s questions in relation to the proposed amendments? Or is it that as has become their government’s practice they have no intention of entertaining any changes to a flawed Bill except of the most inconsequential kind? They not only need to extend the consultation period, but put in place mechanisms for genuine discussions with the public.