The Carter Center has once again raised concerns about Guyana’s bloated voter list following the 2025 General and Regional Elections. But its renewed call for reform, made five years after its initial alarm in 2020, has reignited skepticism and criticism from civil society groups and electoral reform advocates who say the respected international body failed to meaningfully support the Guyanese public’s demands in the intervening years.
The Official List of Electors (OLE) for the 2025 Elections stands at 757,715 registered voters, when the national populations is approximately 780,000-800,000. The true figure is not known because the Government refuses to release the last National Census which was done in 2022.
In its preliminary statement issued on September 3, the Carter Center commended the “peaceful, orderly” conduct of election day and praised the professionalism of polling staff and officials. However, it warned that Guyana’s next leaders “will need to institute reforms to create a more level playing field and increase voters’ trust in the electoral process.”
Despite acknowledging the continued public concern surrounding the size and integrity of the voter list — which is reported to include almost 90 percent of the population — the Center offered little reflection on its own lack of sustained engagement on the issue since 2020.
“To address persistent questions about the size and integrity of the voter list, GECOM should implement the new legal procedures for removing the names of voters who have died within Guyana,” the statement said. “It should also look to international experience for removing electors who have died overseas.”
But for many Guyanese, these recommendations ring hollow after five years of apparent inaction. Electoral reform advocates argue that the Carter Center, which has long positioned itself as a champion of democracy, missed a critical opportunity to support grassroots efforts that have consistently called on the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government to pass the necessary legislation for cleaning the list.
A History of Warnings, Followed by Silence
The Carter Center first highlighted the issue of a bloated voter list following the controversial 2020 elections. At the time, it acknowledged that the unusually large number of registered voters — representing nearly 90% of the national population — undermined confidence in the credibility of the process.
However, after 2020, the Center’s presence in the country significantly diminished, and it made no concerted push to pressure the government or GECOM to act on the issue. This silence persisted even as civil society groups and political opposition figures repeatedly called for reforms to ensure that only eligible, living Guyanese were on the list.
Their failure to act has given rise to concerns that international observer missions may not be as committed to ensuring free, fair, and credible elections as their reports suggest.
“A bloated list that includes nearly 90 percent of the population can never deliver free, fair, and credible elections,” one local analyst said. “When a group like the Carter Center highlights the problem in 2020, says nothing for five years, and then comes back in 2025 to repeat the same point, you have to question whether they’re truly invested in democratic reform — or just checking boxes.”
Growing Disillusionment With International Observers
In a country where democratic institutions remain fragile and where oil wealth has intensified political stakes, the role of international observers has never been more crucial. Yet many Guyanese now express growing disillusionment with these bodies, accusing them of offering superficial endorsements of flawed processes without committing to long-term reform efforts.
The Carter Center’s 2025 preliminary statement emphasizes that observers “will continue to monitor events and produce a final report,” and encourages reforms such as strengthening the independence of the election commission and improving campaign finance transparency.
However, without firm, consistent advocacy — particularly on the bloated voter list — these suggestions risk being perceived as diplomatic platitudes rather than serious calls to action.
As Guyana’s final election results are awaited and post-election scrutiny continues, one question looms large: Can a democracy thrive when the very institutions meant to safeguard it are silent when their voice is most needed?
