Dr. Henry Jeffrey, writing his last Sunday column, has sharply criticised the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) for its failure to implement much-needed electoral reforms as the 2025 elections draw near, questioning the commission’s commitment to ensuring a legitimate and credible election process. Despite mounting public concerns, Dr. Jeffrey points out that GECOM remains largely unresponsive to calls for a new voter list, biometric identification, and other measures that could restore trust in the election results.
In 2021, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government enlisted the International Republican Institute (IRI) to lead election reforms. However, a 2022 poll conducted by CID Gallup for IRI painted a troubling picture: only 38% of respondents believed the election results reflected the will of the people, with 51% disagreeing. These findings, among the most objective political polls in Guyana in recent years, reflect deepening skepticism toward the electoral process.
Dr. Jeffry highlighted the fact that, according to the poll, only 22% of Guyanese across various ethnic groups believed the results of past elections were legitimate. This includes 16% of Africans, 28% of East Indians, 21% of Indigenous people, and 20% of mixed-race individuals. The survey results underscore the lack of confidence in the Guyana Elections Commission, an institution tasked with ensuring fair elections.
Despite these alarming statistics, GECOM seems set to proceed toward the 2025 elections with little change to its current processes. This inaction comes after allegations of voter impersonation and electoral fraud during the 2020 elections, which remain unresolved. The 2020 CARICOM Recount Team recommended a new voter list, while the European Union Observer Mission criticised the bloated voter list, but these calls for action have gone largely ignored.
One of the most contentious issues surrounding the election process is the introduction of a biometric voter registration system. GECOM recently acknowledged the potential benefits of biometrics, including better security and reduced electoral fraud. However, the commission claimed that it was too late to implement such a system for the upcoming elections, citing challenges like legal and technical issues, poor connectivity, and concerns over disenfranchisement in rural areas.
Dr. Jeffries, however, is unconvinced by these excuses, citing the example of Ghana, which successfully implemented biometric voter identification across 26,000 polling stations in just six weeks, despite having a much larger population and a vast hinterland. He argues that GECOM’s failure to act over several years undermines its credibility and its constitutional duty to ensure the legitimacy of elections.
The situation has led many to question GECOM’s impartiality. Dr. Jeffry suggests that the commission’s reluctance to introduce reforms is symptomatic of a long-standing issue: GECOM has often been perceived as aligned with the ruling party, leading to suspicions that it is not fulfilling its role as an independent electoral body.
While opposition parties have called for the introduction of biometrics, Dr. Jeffrey points out that the Guyana Trade Union Congress (GTUC) has also voiced support for the reforms, yet GECOM continues to dismiss such calls. A PPP-affiliated GECOM commissioner recently downplayed this support, claiming that only the opposition parties, like the People’s National Congress (PNC) and the Alliance For Change (AFC), are in favour of biometrics, dismissing the voices of unions and other civil society organizations.
Dr. Jeffrey argues that GECOM’s refusal to act is detrimental to the legitimacy of the government and the electoral process. He emphasises that the country needs electoral reforms to restore public confidence in its political system. He further stresses that the ruling PPP benefits from a flawed system, and only sustained political pressure, including nonviolent resistance, will force the necessary changes.
As the 2025 elections approach, Dr. Jeffrey warns that GECOM’s failure to address these critical issues could undermine the legitimacy of the election results and further erode trust in the political system. For many, the question is not whether the system is flawed, but how much longer the people of Guyana will accept a system that fails to deliver transparent and credible elections.
