One year after the most important elections in Guyana’s history, we are none the wiser about what occurred on March 2nd, 2020. It is well known that we had a regional declaration that did not find favour with large swathes of the population and the international community and should not have found favor with any fair-minded person. Likewise, it is well known that there was a quasi-audit that revealed serious concerns about the voting process on the day of elections which placed serious question marks over the numerical count.
We know that there were unprecedented cataclysmic events. Above all, we know the mother of all elections has completely shattered confidence in the electoral system and many are of the view that the idea of free, fair and credible elections is but a fleeting illusion to be pursued but never attained in Guyana. In this, there lies dangerous implications for the Republic and underscores the need for urgent reform.
VALID VOTES V MORE VOTES CAST
At the heart of the concerns emanating from the mother of all elections is the issue of what constitutes valid votes. In my estimation, there should never be any argument or obfuscation on this subject. It ought to be unambiguous. A valid vote should automatically mean a vote that satisfies all legal requirements. For reasons only known to them, the framers of the Guyana Constitution declined to specifically and explicitly include the phrase ‘valid votes’ in Article 177(2) (b) of the Constitution which speaks to the process that leads to the election of a President. Certainly, the possibility of legal confusion stemming from this phraseology could not have escaped the framers.
Some global constitutions did not commit this fatal mistake. For example, in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Article 63(3) is clear: ‘A person shall not be elected as President of Ghana unless at the presidential election the number of votes cast in his favor is more than fifty percent of the total number of valid votes cast at the election’. As you may have gathered by now, we urgently need to rephrase the language of Article 177 (2) (b) to include valid votes.
THE LEGITIMACY OF A PRESIDENT
The arguments of urgent reforms are made more credible and urgent when one considers the fact that Guyana is a nation with a neighbor to the west who dares to claim 70% of its territory. On this sole consideration, no President deserves to have narratives surrounding his/her presidency that hint at the lack of legitimacy. Being President of Guyana, as is the case with any polity, is a tough business. Having to organise a heavily polarised society against a foreign enemy is a herculean task. For those compelling reasons, it is incumbent upon us to enact electoral reform which would protect any future President from such distractions. If there is any country on earth that needs to protect the institution of the Presidency, it is Guyana.
I maintain, as I always have, courts remain the ultimate repository for truth and when it comes to settling the question of whether someone acceded to power based on all legal processes and proper procedures were followed, it is the court that must pronounce on this. This becomes necessary so the nation can move forward and throw its support behind a President to confront Guyana’s existential threat to the west.
If there are no sweeping reforms that can protect the vote as far as practicable, I doubt I will be inking b finger again after waking at 6 am to join a long line in the hot sun.
