The three members of the Elections Commission representing the Opposition, recently issued a joint letter calling for the implementation of biometrics by way of electronic fingerprint technology, to identify voters at elections. This is a long-standing demand by the Opposition that picked up speed after the 2020 elections when the Opposition, in a deflective maneouvre, incredulously accused the PPP of rigging. As an aside, we should understand that if and when fingerprint technology is implemented, reasons will then be found to continue to allege that the PPP is rigging the elections. Demands will then emerge for retina identification technology. These demands for additional measures, including applicable AI technology, will continue indefinitely into the future, as long as the PPP wins elections. With fading memories, it is difficult to believe that it was the PNC governments from 1968 to 1985 that applied the most unusual, open, measures to rig elections. Its attempt to do so in 2020, creating great trauma across Guyana, suggests that if it ever achieves office again, the appalling crudities witnessed in the Ashmin’s building and in Kingston in 2020 will be once again applied.
Guyana has gone a far way since the 1985 elections, the worst rigged in Guyana’s history. Free and fair elections are now guaranteed by access of all political parties to the political process, an accurate voters’ list, freedom to vote in conditions of security, the secrecy of the ballot, an adequate system of identification of voters, a transparent counting method at the place of poll and secure transmission of the results. From 1992 until recently, additional methods of transparency were added. One such important innovation was the system of scrutineers. Political parties were allowed by law to appoint scrutineers to each registration exercise, and they were paid by the government. This precluded the possibility of fake names being placed on the registration list, from which the voters’ list is extracted. Apart from these, GECOM’s systems, with much support from donors, was substantially improved over the years. However, all of these expansive and costly efforts did not prevent allegations of the rigging of elections since 1992, positive overseas observer reports notwithstanding. One of the most recent except for, as alleged, the perfidy of the PPP as a well-oiled rigging machine, is the alleged ‘bloated’ list which the press persistently allows the Opposition to repeat ad nauseam without pointing out that non-residents are entitled to be on the list and that accounts for its size.
Since the decision of the case in Esther Perreira in 2001, it became the established law that no qualification, except those provided for in articles 59 and 159 of the Constitution, can be imposed on voters. This can also be interpreted to mean no obstacle. In that case, the Judge struck down the law that required a voter ID card to be produced to enable the voter to vote. It was held that the voter ID law violated articled 59 and 159. Article 59 provides that subject to the provisions of article 159, every person may vote at an election if he or she is of the age eighteen years or upwards and is either a citizen of Guyana or a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana. Article 159 establishes that voters are required to be registered and it provides the qualifications for registration. Therefore, the essential constitutional qualifications that confer the right to vote are (a) eighteen years of age; (b) a citizen of Guyana; (c) a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana; (d) registered to vote.
Like the voter ID law, the imposition by law of a biometrics requirement to vote similarly violates article 59 and 159 of the Constitution. Since it would be a constitutional violation, the only possibility of clearing the way for the use of biometrics is an appropriate constitutional amendment. An ordinary law, such as the voter ID law, will be quickly overturned as violative of the constitution. Even if the government were to be differently advised and decide that a mere amendment of the Representation of the People Act to provide for biometrics would be sufficient, and that law is passed unanimously in the National Assembly, what would prevent an Opposition to later claim that the law is unconstitutional, as occurred in relation to the voter ID law. And would the government be prepared to tamper with the Constitution to satisfy the voracious demands of the Opposition because after the elections next year, another cycle of accusations of rigging and demands for reform will ring out. The PPP is not supposed to win elections. Only APNU has that right.
There should be no objection to continuously monitoring the performance of our electoral systems and practices to consider where improvements can be made and to give effect to them. However, these must be reasonable and rational and based on genuine issues, not on fictitious and baseless allegations based on suspicions in an unending political dance over the electoral system based on nothing more than political calculations and posturing.