Dear Editor,
It seems as if there is never a dull day, these days, on our political landscape, as the country continues, oxymoronically, to be taken down that dark, undemocratic, autocratic and dictatorial path in the name of righteousness. I am advised that in some circles Jagdeo is regarded as a Deity, thus his word is Gospel and all others are heresy. That obviously is not applicable to the real adherents of democracy.
Jagdeo`s latest remark is that the “PNCR-led APNU must acknowledge election rigging before involvement in executive” This is tantamount to non-recognition of the election results by virtue of which the PPP/C is in government. That is probably apt given all of the unresolved shenanigans surrounding a significant amount of votes for which validating documentation mysteriously disappeared.
However, it is the said election which allows the PPP/C to occupy the seat of government that vests the APNU-AFC the right to occupy the seat of Opposition and the right to participate in Governance just as much as the PPP/C exercises the right to govern. In that regard, the Government must act in accordance with the Constitution, in relation to the role and rights of the APNU-AFC Opposition. Jagdeo and his ilk have no deified authority to breach the Constitution and the conventions of governance in determining their relationship with the duly elected Opposition. Any such act delegitimizes the PPP/C reign as government/the executive.
In addition to Jagdeo`s non-sequitur, what logical and moral grounds do Jagdeo and his ilk stand on in their demand for an apology, from the APNU for alleged electoral rigging, before they can be engaged?
Jagdeo`s foray seeks to direct attention away from the real issues that confront the practice, or lack thereof, of democracy in Guyana. In fact, Jagdeo has led his band to deny local democratic organs and non-governmental organizations their constitutional rights, as provided for in articles 71 and 13 respectively, to participate in the decision-making processes of the State, not to mention the constant denial, in the National Assembly, of the Opposition`s right to have matters of national interest discussed.
This clearly demonstrates that the PPP/C in its communistic, undemocratic and winner-take-all politics does not embrace the principles of Good Governance, to wit inclusion and participation, although the Constitution mandates them to so do. This accusation about rigged elections, at this juncture, is nothing but a ruse, a red herring.
The accusation of rigged elections is probably most applicable to the PPP/C than it may be to any other political party. Their record of electoral infractions and their support for, and defense of, riggers validate this contention.
In 1961, the PPP never held the Houston Bye-Election as mandated by the court and occupied an ill gained seat for an entire term. In 2006, relying on rigged results, they occupied a constituency seat in Region 10 that was won by the AFC. Their plant at GECOM, after undertaking to correct what was claimed to be a mistaken declaration, proceeded to declare the false result and referred the AFC to the court for recourse. The matter was never addressed because of inadvertent procedural flaws in filing the matter.
The PPP/C bare facedly squatted on that seat for an entire term. In 2011, their plant once again was caught red handedly attempting to rob the AFC of a seat. The culprit continued to function in high office at GECOM with the support of the PPP/C, who brazenly declared that the system had worked and that no disciplinary action was required, much less criminal action as has been pursued in 2020, after the system once again, by their definition, worked. In 2020, the APNU-AFC produced credible and verified evidence of fraudulent votes.
The Attorney General, who was the PPP/C`s agent for the area in which documentation for 47 boxes mysteriously disappeared, demanded that the unverified portion of the documents of the purported fraudulent votes be handed over to his office. Over one year has lapsed and the verification of the evidence of fraudulent votes has remained in cold storage, although the State has at its disposal the machinery to determine the veracity of the claim, as had been determined for the first batch. GECOM also refused to act on the verified evidence of fraudulent votes.
In the face of this sordid history of electoral malfeasance, not to mention the forged signatures, bought votes, and the reported case of someone in Durban Backland who having unwittingly submitted her ID card to a PPP/C political operative, purportedly for the delivery of a service, to find out on “E” Day that a vote had been cast in her name, when she turned up to cast her vote, at the recent local government elections. In the face of all of this Jagdeo has the gall to present himself and party as holier than holy in relation to rigged elections, seeking to cast the first proverbial stone, in Judas like fashion.
The PPP/C`s resistance to the implementation of electronic finger print capture and electronic fingerprint identification at the place of poll also signals their resistance to strengthening the system and their insistence on the retention of a system which has facilitated voter rigging.
Yours truly,
Desmond Trotman
Vincent Alexander
GECOM Commissioners
