By Mark DaCosta- The recent General and Regional Elections have cast a spotlight on the pressing need for electoral reforms in our nation, with the CARICOM Election Observer Mission (CEOM) indicating that it will bring forth recommendations to enhance the electoral process. However, the timing of these anticipated suggestions raises troubling questions that cannot be ignored. Why did the so-called experts affiliated with CARICOM overlook vital electoral shortcomings before the elections? Were they unaware of the necessary steps for cleaning up the voters’ list, enforcing campaign finance regulations, or implementing biometric verification for identifying voters? The silence on these fundamental issues prior to the elections – say analysts – suggests a deeper complicity with the current administration’s plans than a genuine commitment to uphold free and fair elections. The citizens of our nation are astute observers, capable of discerning the nuances of the political landscape, and they recognise the dissonance between CARICOM’s assessments and the reality on the ground.
Josephine Tamai, who leads the CEOM, has made statements regarding the election process that have provoked widespread debate. She noted the elections were “calm, orderly, and transparent,” strongly affirming that voters participated without “fear or intimidation.” Yet, beneath the surface of these remarks lies a stark contrast to the lived experiences of many Guyanese. While proclaiming the election environment peaceful, she simultaneously acknowledged troubling reports of improper use of state resources during campaigning — indicating that certain government assets may have been misappropriated to benefit incumbents. “We were told that persons were using helicopters and other things to campaign,” Tamai remarked, sparking incredulity among those who follow the elections closely. If issues like these were known during the pre-election phase, why did the CEOM — and CARICOM generally — not take a more proactive approach to address them? Why now, after the horse has already bolted the stable?
The apparent oversight or willful blindness of the CEOM – and CARICOM generally – raises acute questions about their credibility and motives, as well as the broader role they play in our democracy. Randy Gopaul, a prominent political commentator, has expressed deep concerns regarding the impartiality of international observers. He asserts, “Do not be fooled by their tailored suits and diplomatic jargon. Their handshakes with the very architects of this stolen election are not oversight; they are collaboration.” This statement reflects a pervasive sentiment among disillusioned citizens: that the CARICOM observers have morphed from being guardians of democracy into facilitators of an electoral process that many believe lacks legitimacy.
While Tamai commended the professional conduct of election monitoring at many polling stations, some key observations do not align with her rosy depiction of the electoral process. For instance, although “most stations opened on time,” the late opening of one crucial polling station at 6:40 a.m. due to logistical issues raises eyebrows. Was this singular incident an isolated affair or indicative of broader systemic weaknesses? Tamai assured that this delay “did not disenfranchise any voters,” but such reassurances do little to ease concerns over an electoral environment where every minute counts and delays can have significant implications. The issue of foreign nationals participating in Guyana’s elections is also an issue, as is the disenfranchisement of some Guyanese.
Moreover, her observations highlighted the challenges faced by elderly and disabled voters as some polling stations were not located on the ground floor. “This presented a challenge…which are an important consideration for future planning,” she acknowledged. Such issues, visible to observers and voters alike, invite reflection on the adequacy of preparations and the implications of exclusion for these vulnerable groups. In a democracy that prides itself on inclusivity, it is disheartening that these challenges emerged.
Disturbingly, the CEOM’s upcoming recommendations pertaining to campaign financing and the integrity of the voters’ list come too late. The lack of action on these matters before the elections leads many to question whether the CEOM was fully invested in ensuring that the electoral process was as sound as possible. “We received reports that there is an issue of dead persons on the list…to address this we would recommend that there be a re-registration process, and the creation of an entirely new list,” Tamai stated. Yet, the disclosure of such a pivotal recommendation without prior recognition of the problem speaks to a troubling failure by CARICOM to engage meaningfully with local governance issues, particularly in a climate charged with political criticism.
Gopaul’s critique of the election observer mission resonates with a growing distrust among voters. He explicitly states, “The corruption is not a secret; it is the entire structure.” Many citizens suspect that CARICOM has become too close to the governing party, the PPP. According to an analyst, the distinct possibility of financial incentives corrupting the integrity of international observers is a source of increasing anxiety. This raises the question: were financial transactions involved that may have influenced CARICOM’s perception of the electoral process? The sheer magnitude of foreign investments in our nation, particularly with the rising importance of our energy resources, provokes speculation that external parties might prioritise securing their financial interests over true democratic principles.
As the CEOM prepares to deliver its comprehensive report, Guyanese citizens are encouraged to remain vigilant in seeking accountability from both their government and international observers. Gopaul recounts a sentiment many feel, stating, “True legitimacy cannot be flown in on a first-class ticket. It must be earned through the transparent counting of every single vote.” This call to action reinforces the imperative for an engaged and informed electorate unwilling to accept superficial reassurances masquerading as democracy.
The CARICOM mission’s apparent or alleged collaboration with a government accused of multiple failings creates a breeding ground for cynicism and questions about the essence of good governance. With the many roadblocks faced by ordinary citizens in ensuring their votes are counted accurately, it is paramount that those who profess to uphold democratic norms not only observe but challenge the status quo effectively.
According to the analyst, as the dust settles from these elections, it remains to be seen whether the recommendations coming from the CEOM will reflect genuine engagement with the electoral processes or simply perpetuate the illusion of democracy in our nation. For the sake of our future, we cannot allow the outcome of this election to be co-opted by either complacency from international observers or complicity from local authorities. The right to fair representation is sacrosanct, and the vibrancy of our democracy depends on the courage of our people to make their dissatisfaction known and to demand accountability, ensuring that each vote is respected and counted accurately. In this critical juncture, our collective voice must ring louder than any diplomatic seals of approval.
