General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, has announced plans to lead a team from his party to meet with the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) tomorrow to discuss the Commission’s preparations for the upcoming General and Regional Elections. The meeting will also address concerns raised by the Opposition about GECOM’s readiness and to clarify the party’s stance on the controversial issue of biometric voter identification.
In a press conference last Thursday, Jagdeo strongly rejected claims from the Opposition, particularly the Alliance For Change (AFC), that GECOM is unprepared to conduct the elections this year. He specifically dismissed accusations of dysfunction at the Commission, which had been suggested by the AFC in light of the ongoing debate about biometrics and voter integrity.
Jagdeo dismissed the AFC’s contention there is dysfunction at GECOM despite evidence provided by AFC Leader, Nigel Hughes. According to the PPP General Secretary, GECOM chairperson, ret’d Justice Claudette Singh made it very clear why the introduction of biometrics was rejected, and the Opposition has provided no evidence to support claims of voter impersonation or multiple voting. The general secretary’s claims on voter integrity are not credible when reviewed, particularly in light of what was unearthed from the 2020 Elections during the recount exercise.
More than a decade-long debate over biometrics
The call for biometrics as a measure to strengthen voter integrity in Guyana’s elections has been widespread for over a decade. Many have argued that biometric voter identification could prevent voter fraud, such as impersonation and multiple voting, issues that have long plagued the country’s electoral process. However, despite repeated calls from civil society and the Opposition, the GECOM has consistently found reasons to reject the idea, citing time, logistical, legal  and technical challenges.
However, the PPP supported the call for biometrics when it was in opposition, the party has since softened its position. Now in government, the PPP has expressed conditional support for biometrics—but only if it does not interfere with the constitutional timeline for General and Regional Elections, which are due in 2025.
The PPP is now hiding behind GECOM’s explanation why the introduction of enhanced biometrics would not be feasible at this time.
A History of Electoral Irregularities
The issue of biometrics is particularly contentious due to the history of electoral irregularities in Guyana. Over the years, there have been multiple instances of fraud and suspicious voting patterns. These irregularities, many believe, have disproportionately benefited the PPP.
In 2020, the election process was marred by controversy, with claims of rigging and delayed vote counting. The situation became so fraught that international observers were called in to monitor the final stages of the process. While the PPP won the election, the allegations of fraud left a cloud of suspicion over the results, with many questioning whether the integrity of the vote had been compromised.
In 2011, the PPP’s hold on power was similarly questioned when reports surfaced of attempts to manipulate the vote count. However, these efforts were ultimately thwarted, leading to a significant shift in public and political opinion about the transparency of Guyana’s electoral process.
PPP’s Reluctance to Embrace Biometrics
Despite its historical support for biometric identification, the PPP’s current reluctance to fully commit to its introduction has raised eyebrows. Critics argue that the party has benefitted from electoral irregularities in past elections. The PPP has been accused of benefiting from electoral irregularities, as seen in the 2006 and 2020 elections, with attempts to manipulate results also reported in 2011, though those were prevented. There have been instances of deceased individuals’ casting votes, as well as people voting while being outside the country on Election Day. Many believe these irregularities have disproportionately favoured the PPP, which may explain the party’s reluctance to fully embrace biometrics as a safeguard in the electoral process.
The introduction of biometrics is seen as a way to curb these issues, yet the PPP has repeatedly expressed concerns about its feasibility and timing. Moreover, within GECOM, the party’s reluctance to embrace biometrics is reflected in the actions of PPP-nominated commissioners. GECOM’s Chairperson, whose decisions have consistently aligned with the PPP-nominated members, has reinforced the position that biometric systems are not feasible for the upcoming elections due to logistical constraints.
GECOM’s Position and Jagdeo’s Defense
At the same time, Jagdeo defended GECOM’s position, claiming that the Commission has improved its ability to conduct free and fair elections and that the current system is robust enough to prevent voter impersonation. He also pointed to the involvement of both local and international observers, who will be present at polling stations to monitor the process. Yet the observers have repeatedly pointed out the size of the Voters List, which is almost the size of the population, and recommended GECOM take action to correct this anomaly. Biometrics was seen as one way of doing so and has been used by many countries around the world.
The meeting between Jagdeo and GECOM tomorrow will likely provide more clarity on the PPP’s position, but the issue of biometrics remains a key point of contention as the 2025 elections approach.
