Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
By Mark DaCosta- As Guyana navigates the complex landscape of electoral politics, the call for a biometric voting system by the Opposition emerges as a vital opportunity to enhance electoral integrity and rebuild public trust. The People’s Progressive Party (PPP)’s continued resistance to biometric technology raises serious concerns about their commitment to a fair electoral process, suggesting motives that could undermine the very foundations of our country.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall has rejected the implementation of biometric voting, arguing that the nation is unprepared for such technology. His assertion that a malfunctioning machine could disenfranchise voters seems more like a convenient excuse than a genuine concern. In a world increasingly reliant on technology, it is essential to understand that all systems, whether manual or digital, carry inherent risks. However, countries around the globe have successfully integrated biometric systems into their electoral processes, minimising the potential for fraud and enhancing voter confidence.
Nandlall’s claims that the current voting system is sufficient overlook the crucial fact that many eligible voters have legitimate concerns about the integrity of their votes. His dismissal of biometric methods, which have proven effective in other democracies, is baffling.
For instance, India employs a biometric identification system for its vast electorate, successfully reducing incidents of voter impersonation and increasing public trust in electoral outcomes. Similarly, countries like Kenya have demonstrated that biometric systems can streamline the voting process while enhancing security.
Opposition Commissioner Vincent Alexander has argued persuasively for the introduction of biometric identification, highlighting that fingerprints are unique and virtually impossible to forge. He asserts, “fingerprints are not forgeable… hence the rationale for capturing fingerprints digitally.” This capability is critical in a landscape where allegations of voter impersonation and fraud have cast a shadow over recent elections. By ensuring that only legitimate voters can access polling stations, biometrics would serve as a robust safeguard against electoral malpractice.
Clement Rohee, the PPP’s Election Commissioner, claims that no one should be disenfranchised due to poor fingerprint quality. However, this position fails to recognise the potential for a more reliable system to address such concerns. The issue of smudged or incomplete fingerprints has long been a problem with analog methods.
As Rohee himself admits, “the quality of manually captured fingerprints may, in some cases, be weak.” In this light, the introduction of digital fingerprinting becomes not just advantageous but necessary to ensure that every eligible voter can participate in elections without undue hindrance.
Shadow Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Roysdale Forde argues that the real barrier to implementing biometric voting is the PPP’s determination to preserve electoral mechanisms that facilitate fraud. He insists, “It is not for Nandlall to determine Guyana’s readiness for electronic voting” but the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and called on GECOM Chair ret’d Justice Claudette Singh “to support electronic voting.” Forde’s appeal underlines a crucial point: the decision to adopt biometric voting lies with GECOM not the PPP.
Beyond merely preventing fraud, biometric systems are essential for fostering greater public confidence in the electoral process. As our nation grapples with lingering doubts about electoral integrity, implementing biometric technology could serve as a powerful remedy.
Research has shown when citizens trust their electoral systems, voter participation rates increase, ultimately strengthening democracy. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance reports that countries employing biometric identification experience higher levels of voter satisfaction and confidence in election results.
Moreover, the technical feasibility of biometric systems has been demonstrated in various contexts. Countries like Brazil and Ghana have adopted biometric voting with great success, seeing not only a decrease in electoral fraud but also an increase in overall voter engagement. Our neighbour Brazil, with its extensive biometric system, has seen participation rates rise as citizens feel more secure in the integrity of their votes.
The resistance from the PPP raises questions about their motives. Why would a party, which claims to champion democracy, oppose a system designed to protect the electoral process? Their reluctance to embrace biometrics is particularly puzzling in a context where public distrust in elections is high. Instead of promoting systems that enhance transparency, the PPP seems intent on clinging to outdated methods that leave room for manipulation.
In a time when our nation deserves a transparent, trustworthy electoral process, the push for biometric voting should be welcomed with open arms. It is not merely a technical upgrade; it is a critical evolution towards a more reliable democratic system. The opposition’s advocacy for biometrics represents a commitment to the principles of fairness and transparency that underpin our democracy.
As we move forward, it is imperative that we adopt measures that not only ensure fairness but also bolster public confidence in our electoral system. The introduction of biometric voting is a necessary step toward restoring trust in our democracy. It is time for Guyana’s leaders to prioritise the integrity of our elections, ensuring that every vote is counted and every citizen has faith in the democratic process.
