By Mark DaCosta- As the results of the 2025 elections unfold, Vincent Alexander, a commissioner within the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), has voiced serious concerns regarding the integrity and effectiveness of the electoral process. His stance reflects a broader unease within sections of our country that question the competence and transparency of the electoral body. Alexander’s call for reform underscores the necessity for the elections to truly represent the will of the people, rather than being subjected to a flawed implementation.
In his recent letter to the media, Alexander expressed his unwillingness to endorse the election outcomes without qualification, citing a significant gap between GECOM’s practices and the standards necessary for conducting credible elections. He metaphorically likened the elections to a product seeking certification, accentuating the need for stringent quality assurance measures to ensure that the democratic process meets the expectations of citizens.
Alexander firmly stated, “Elections as a process require the establishment of the organisation; manning of the organisation; equipping of the organisation… and ultimately the integration of manpower, equipment, and processes into a productive system.”
The commissioner highlighted what he believes to be systemic deficiencies within GECOM that compromise the electoral process. Key among these issues is the staffing of GECOM, which he says lacks transparency. He alleged that individuals in senior positions have been appointed despite failing to meet essential qualifications, raising concerns about competence at the highest levels. This purported cronyism only exacerbates suspicions about the integrity of the commission and its ability to conduct fair elections.
Furthermore, the refusal to adopt modern technological solutions presents another barrier to the credibility of the electoral process. Alexander was particularly critical of GECOM’s reliance on outdated methods for voter registration and identification, arguing that “processes and technologies which cannot guarantee the required standards are employed,” while the commission neglects to leverage digital registration and identification systems.
These antiquated practices, he asserts, contribute to the potential for electoral fraud, undermining the principle of one person, one vote. Alexander further warned of the repercussions of maintaining names on the voter list that do not belong to living eligible voters, stating that they “can be misused, and have evidentially been misused.”
His assertions extend to the broader electoral framework, where he believes GECOM has failed to facilitate equitable voting opportunities for all eligible citizens, including disadvantaged groups. For example, he voiced disappointment at the exclusion of incarcerated individuals from the electoral process and the lack of provisions to ensure ease of voting for workers stationed on oil rigs or party members deployed away from their local polling stations.
Ultimately, Alexander’s critique paints a picture of an electoral body that has not only fallen short of its constitutional mandate but has also become entrenched in political squabbling. He contends that “the system is below par for the delivery of the conduct of free, fair and transparent elections,” indicating that the observed smoothness of election day is overshadowed by underlying systemic failures. His conclusion resonates with a sense of urgency for reforms that would enhance GECOM’s operational integrity. He stated, “my presence at GECOM has morphed into that of an advocate for transformation, as opposed to perpetuating and protecting a dysfunctional system.”
In light of Alexander’s remarks, it becomes clear that unless meaningful changes are instituted, the electoral process in our nation risks losing its legitimacy. The tension within GECOM raises critical questions about the future of democracy in our country, as citizens deserve an electoral process that they can trust to reflect their true choices rather than one that is riddled with dysfunction and bias. The need for reform has never been more pressing, and it calls upon all stakeholders to unite in demanding greater accountability from those who govern our electoral processes.
