Political systems remain progressively perfectible as long as they continue to emanate from core beliefs in the equal rights of citizens and electoral democracy. In a more perfect world this would be a benefit of hosting election observers’ missions. If the recommendations of election observer missions were taken up, the benefits would include steady improvements in the conduct of everyday political life, manifested in such things as vibrancy of an independent media, efficient access to information, improved delivery of health and education, the influence of trade unions, and so on. Such political systems also encourage greater civic involvement of ordinary people.
Where equality of citizens and electoral democracy are absent, political life deteriorates into control by elites, leading to the wooing of the votes of the poor by the political parties that are privileged and well-financed. Normal politics in Guyana has deteriorated into such a contest. To this extent, it comes as no surprise that Guyana’s national elections are currently being conducted in an atmosphere of cynicism and distrust. This is the logical extension of our ‘normal ‘politics.
During election times, therefore, rather than look to State institutions, like GECOM, the State media, or the Guyana Police Force for guidance, the average Guyanese listens to the social media voices and other influencers they are accustomed to trusting in everyday life. No matter the many cautions intoned about social media capacity to mislead and to manipulate, the quality of public life cannot be transformed overnight, regardless of how many overseas observers are present.
In such a political environment International Observers perhaps should focus on an accumulation of stories related to institutional failings of Government ministries or abuses of Government equipment, facilities and personnel would effectively illustrate the degree to which elections are free and fair. Similarly, describing the ways in which individual parties have been victims of bureaucratic harassment from the ruling party is sufficient to expose the autocratic tendencies of the Government. The GHRA advises International Observers not to treat the ruling party with any more deference than other contesting parties, in terms of how they relate to the media.
The potential for local observers exposing unacceptable aspects of electoral practice is very limited, especially in light of such groups having made no public efforts to improve electoral laws and practices during ‘normal politics’. Why, for example, have local bodies who intend to monitor on elections day not commented on pre-monitoring activities? They are well-placed to expose the abuse and harassment, for example, of the WIN campaign by the Government.
Strategically, the most useful role International Observers can play in this election is to harmonize and expand their coverage of interior locations, facilitated in this election by extended availability of wi-fi, concentrating on those areas in which harassment of WIN activists has been prevalent. International Observers should also pay close attention to the polling stations set up in private houses, a late decision by GECOM that falls outside the Procedures set out for ‘Preparation for the Poll’ in Part V of the Representation of the People Act, cap. 1:03, 2006, of the Laws of Guyana.
