The GECOM (Guyana Elections Commission) is an electoral management body in Guyana responsible for the conduct of elections in the country. The public perception of GECOM varies depending on the political climate and the outcome of elections.
In recent years, GECOM has been subject to scrutiny and criticism from political parties, civil society organisations, and international observers over allegations of electoral malpractice and bias. The 2020 General and Regional Elections in Guyana were particularly contentious and resulted in several legal challenges and calls for GECOM to address irregularities in the electoral process.
The recent nomination day for Local Government Elections 2023 saw and uncovered some shocking revelations of electoral fraud conducted by the PPP/C government. They proved to this nation that they have no intention to come clean on an election and always sought to put the blame on the APNU/AFC. This time they got caught with their pants down by putting dead people on their nomination forms and people who have migrated. These persons included the dead whose signatures were forged.
In some cases, one person just wrote the name of individuals and signed for them. My suspicion is that they used the list produced by GECOM and inserted the names without realising that some persons were either dead or migrated. This is a serious matter that should be investigated thoroughly.
Despite all these revelations, the GECOM still finds itself telling the public and the opposition to file an election petition after the election. The recent General Election in 2020 seems not enough to satisfy this institution that drastic changes needed to be made within its operation and with all the irregularities and recommendations from the international observers, GECOM still feels comfortable with its position on election. It has not taken a single step to correct its deficiencies in the upcoming Local Government electoral process.
There are calls from several groups that include civil society, political parties, youth arms, international bodies, etc. to improve its electoral system by implementing bio-metric, a clean voter list and a house-to-house registration that was due since April 2019.
The structure of GECOM is too politicised and always finds itself where it has to decide like a judge which side to choose. For the past three years the chairperson found herself always making decisions for the government side that posed a more negative perception of the institution.
There may be some who have a positive perception of GECOM, particularly supporters of the governing party who believe that the Commission in 2023 has conducted elections in a fair and transparent manner. However, in 2015 when they lost the elections they did not feel so.
Overall, the public perception of GECOM is divided, with some seeing it as a reliable and impartial body responsible for upholding the integrity of the electoral process, while others view it with suspicion and distrust.
Having acknowledged the public’s perception of GECOM is mixed/divided, the organisation has the responsibility to ensure it establishes widespread confidence. An organisation this important to our democracy hurts the public, whether in whole or part, when perceived as partisan by whichever side.
Further, GECOM in its present formulation was established to remove suspicions or allegations of partisanship about our electoral system. To the extent the body does not strive hard enough to remove doubts of its competency to manage and declare credible elections, it would not engender widespread confidence. GECOM cannot ignore this.
