– Alexander says a Commission made up of ‘civil society’ may breed political imbalance
By Lisa Hamilton
The clear political allegiance of executives of the Private Sector Commission (PSC) and some civil society groups has solidified that while the Carter Formula lends to a highly politicised board of Election Commissioners, an alternative of selecting members from such groups may lead the Commission into serious problems of partiality.
This is the strong opinion of Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Commissioner, Vincent Alexander. He recently sat down with the Village Voice for an extended interview on the recommendations made by Election Observer Missions (EOMs) to Guyana for the controversial 2020 General and Regional Elections.
Take, for instance, the report of the CARICOM Observer Team stated: “…to maintain GECOM in its present form would be a tragedy for the nation and the people of Guyana. GECOM, as we indicated, is a creature of the dominant political parties…the Commissioners are primarily, though not exclusively, dominated by the ethos of positing their respective parties to political victory.”
The method of appointment of GECOM Commissioners originated from a recommendation of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, made for the 1992 election. It has come to be known as the “Carter Formula” and was later integrated into the Constitution. However, even the Carter Center has pointed out that the formula gives GECOM a partisan structure that has resulted in a highly polarised and sometimes ineffective board of Commissioners. It recommended that Guyana consider adjusting GECOM’s structure to increase its independence, effectiveness, and professionalism.
However, Commissioner Alexander said that, oftentimes, it is easy for those from the outside looking in to make recommendations to Guyana which they expect would be suitable, but those living with the challenges know that greater ones lie ahead if a clear balance is not maintained.
“I have, in the past, expressed the view that it is not the best of compositions of the Commission because it makes the Commission highly political. However, having said that, I’ve gone on to say that it has one advantage: the nation knows clearly who are the people and what they represent, more or less, on that Commission” Alexander said.
“I say that because, given the nature of Guyana, this call for people to Civil society to be on the Commission could lend to a situation where you have people from ‘civil society’ who, in fact, [are] representing political interest clothed in the coat of ‘civil society’. In that circumstance, the nation does not necessarily know what is going on in terms of where the people are coming from, and, to me, that could be a worse situation.”
