Despite the smooth conduct of Guyana’s September 1 General and Regional Elections, a chorus of damning reports from international observer missions has laid bare a deep crisis at the heart of the country’s electoral system. While elections were held without major disruption, not a single observer mission declared the 2025 polls “free and fair.”
The European Union (EU), Carter Center, Commonwealth Secretariat, CARICOM, and the Organisation of American States (OAS) all flagged one critical issue: the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) remains deeply compromised by political interference, undermining both its independence and the credibility of the electoral process.
“The Guyana Elections Commission managed the elections efficiently,” said EU Chief Observer Robert Biedron, “however, its decision-making remains heavily influenced by political polarisation, which undermines public confidence.”
That influence, observers say, stems directly from the entrenched partisan structure of GECOM, where the major political parties—the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)—control all appointments through the outdated Carter-Price Formula. That formula allots three commissioners to the governing party, three to the opposition, and allows the President to select the Chair from a list proposed by the Opposition Leader. In practice, this has locked GECOM into a state of political deadlock and public distrust.
Carter Center: Time to Scrap the Carter Formula
Jason Carter, head of the Carter Center’s mission, was especially critical, stating that the Carter Formula has outlived its usefulness and is now a serious liability.
“We have been against the Carter Formula for years,” Carter said. The agency “can be more independent and less partisan.”
According to the Carter Center, only the two dominant political parties are represented on GECOM, despite six parties contesting the election. Smaller parties are entirely shut out of electoral decision-making and left without access to vital information, further reinforcing their political marginalisation.
CARICOM: Independent Commissioners Needed
Josephine Tamai, CARICOM’s Chief of Mission and Belize’s Chief Elections Officer, added her voice to the growing call for the inclusion of independent, non-partisan voices on the commission.
“I am not certain that when it comes to the Commission, it should only be political parties involved,” she stated. “Some of those political parties don’t even exist anymore. You would want to have independent organisations being a part of the Commission.”
Tamai further recommended term limits for commissioners and broader representation to enhance accountability and reduce political entrenchment.
Commonwealth and OAS: Reforms Urgently Needed
Both the Commonwealth and OAS expressed similar concerns, with the Commonwealth explicitly stating that GECOM’s current structure prohibits effective operation and excludes critical stakeholders from key decisions. Their conclusion: the current model fuels public mistrust and undermines the credibility of elections.
Notably, despite positive remarks about election day procedures, none of the five international observer missions went so far as to label the elections ‘free and fair’—a telling omission that highlights the depth of systemic issues within Guyana’s electoral apparatus.
GTUC: Democracy in Crisis
Meanwhile, the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) took its concerns a step further, warning that electoral integrity in Guyana is not just deteriorating—it is “unfolding in real time.” In meetings with observer missions, the GTUC raised alarms about a bloated voters’ list, the absence of biometric safeguards, partisan media control, and intimidation of opposition figures.
The GTUC urged international bodies to move beyond passive monitoring and demand clear, enforceable benchmarks for democratic credibility. It also asked two pressing questions:
- What benchmarks will be used to determine whether the elections are free, fair, and credible?
- What safeguards exist to ensure the outcome truly reflects the will of the people?
GTUC further warned that despite repeated promises following the 2020 elections, “little to no reform has occurred.”
A Crisis Repeating Itself
This isn’t the first time Guyana has faced such scrutiny. After the highly contentious 2020 elections, similar recommendations were made—but with little political will to implement them, the cycle of dysfunction continues. The structural flaws of GECOM remain untouched, public trust is fragile, and smaller parties continue to be locked out of a process.
In short, the system has remained frozen in a winner-takes-all model, heavily favouring the two ethnic political blocs—PPP and APNU—while hollowing out the space for accountability, transparency, or innovation.
Reform or Ruin?
As the reports pile up, it is crystal clear that Guyana’s democracy cannot endure without a radical restructuring of its electoral commission. The need for independent oversight, wider representation, and decisive reform is no longer debatable—it’s urgent.
If the nation continues to ignore these red flags, it may soon find that elections, no matter how peaceful on the surface, lack the legitimacy needed to sustain public confidence or democratic governance.
In the words of one observer:
“A country where its electoral referee wears the jersey of the teams on the field is not a democracy. It is a scripted game.”
And right now, Guyana’s democracy is dangerously close to being just that.
