Electoral system below par for the delivery of free, fair and transparent elections

Dear Editor

Now that elections 2025 have gotten to the point of the declaration of the results, it behooves me as a commissioner, in the execution of my responsibility, to put on record, and in the public domain, my disposition to the declarations.   

My disposition is one of abstention without any reference, or deference to the actual results being declared.

My disposition is premised on my regard of elections as a product/service of the Elections Commission. In that regard, the conduct of elections is a process which must meet predetermined standards for the service (the conduct of the elections) to be acceptable and considered fit for purpose. This is akin to a manufacturer or service provider seeking ISO (International Standards Organization) certification for his products or services. Certification will allow his products or services to be placed on the market; seen to be of the required quality/standard; and sought after.  

Elections as a process require the establishment of the organization; manning of the organization; equipping of the organization (hardware and software); acquisition of appropriate raw material; streamlining of the required process (identifying and adapting the technology); and ultimately the integration of manpower, equipment, and processes into a productive system.

 Certification is granted when these inputs, as an integrated system, are determined to be fit for the production or delivery of a quality good or service, respectively. Herein lies the determination of my disposition to GECOM and more specifically its service: the conduct of elections.

1. Staffing/Manpower

GECOM`S staffing has been reduced to the appointment of persons in a less than transparent manner, to wit employees at the highest level have been employed, although they have not met the minimum essential requirements stipulated by GECOM, in preference to person who meet those requirements. 

1. Processes and Technology

Processes and technologies which cannot guarantee the required standards are employed, while there is the blatant refusal to embrace appropriate processes and technologies. To wit, digital registration and digital identification have not been embraced and deployed. Rather, GECOM has insisted on the use of manual fingerprint capture, and dated facial identification, all of which have proven to be ineffective and inadequate for the proper registration and identification of persons. Those are core and essential requirements for ensuring that there can only be one person one vote, without which a free, fair and transparent election cannot be guaranteed. In other words, without which an election cannot serve its intended purpose: the expression of the will of the people. Similarly, there are processes for the deletion of the names of the dead (local and overseas) from the voter`s list which have not been employed hence thousands of names that can be misused, and have evidentially been misused, are retained on the list.  And, where ultimate processes, such as periodic re-registration have been ruled out by a judicial judgment, alternate processes like the highlighting of the names of registrants residing overseas, including those probably deceased overseas, have been ruled-out, although it can be used to trigger alertness and vigilance in regard to attempted impersonation, as evidently occurred in 2020.     

1. Essential Inputs 

While the Constitution provides for every registered Guyanese, except those incarcerated for election offenses, and the certified insane, to exercise his or her franchise, GECOM consciously decided not to facilitate the enfranchisement of the incarcerated; the ease of voting for the workers deployed on the oil rigs and related operations; and the ease of voting for party activists deployed away from their polling divisions on “E” Day.

The aforementioned are not matters of election day occurrences or omissions. They are systemic matters that provide for the conduct of elections in keeping with the constitutional mandate of GECOM. They cannot be seen as isolated or disparate elements. They are interrelated. For example, the use of facial identification by GECOM, especially where the ID cards are dated makes a nonsense of, and reduces the efficacy of, the role of party polling agents. It also highlights why digital biometrics should be employed.  

In the case of GECOM, all of the deficiencies referenced above are not mere omissions or indications of deficiencies to be addressed. They were all jettisoned by a majority vote in a fractious and politicized commission.

It is aforementioned that in informs my disposition: abstention. While, a smooth process may have been observed on “E” Day, the system is below par (required standard) for the delivery of the conduct of free, fair and transparent elections. Its negative impact is both qualitative and quantitative and does not guarantee the citizenry suffrage and the complimentary sovereignty.

In the given circumstance, my presence at GECOM has morphed into that of an advocate for transformation, as opposed to perpetuating and protecting a dysfunctional system.    

Yours sincerely,

Vincent Alexander

GECOM Commissioner