A BRIEF HISTORY OF ELECTIONS

A brief history of Guyana’s elections allows for the predicting of election results. In developed countries, observers rely on pollsas a guide. In Guyana, reliance can be placed on historic patterns of ethnic voting, to which can be added circumstances that emerge at some elections.

How are these historic patterns revealed in the actual voting? In the elections in 1957 the PPP obtained 47.51 of the votes cast and the PNC obtained 25.49 percent. In1961 the PPP obtained 42.63 percent of the votes, the PNC 40.99 percent and the UF (United Force)16.38 percent. In 1964 the figures were 45.84 and 40.52 percent respectively. The UF took some of the middle-class Indian support that the PPP got in 1957. As regards the PNC, it took over the middle-class African support of the UDP (United Democratic Party), led by John Carter, with which it merged after the 1957 elections. Thus in 1961 the PPP lost 5 percent and the PNC gained 15 percent. Free and fair elections since 1992 have confirmed that the percentage of support for the two major parties has remained stable from 1961 to the present time. The era of rigged elections in 1968, 1973, 1980 and 1985, are not taken into account. By 1992 the PPP has taken the Amerindian support from the UF which has resulted in it obtaining just over 50 percent of the votes.

The PPP established an absolute majority since 1992 in which it gained 53.45 percent and the PNC gained 42.31 percent, a pattern which continued in 1997 and 2001. The PPP came in at 55.26 and the PNC at 40.55 in 1997 and 52.96 and 41.83 in 2001. But in 2006 the PNC fell to 34.07 percent. The reason for this was the emergence of the AFC which obtained 8.43 percent in 2006. 

In 2011, the PPP fell just below its absolute majority, gaining 48.60 percent, losing support to the AFC which increased its vote to 10.32 percent. The PNC returned to its usual 40.81 percent. The restoration of most of the PNC’s support together with the increase of the AFC’s vote, caused the PPP’s decline below absolute majority. By 2020 the PPP returned to its absolute majority by gaining 50.69 percent and the united APNU+AFC coalition gained 47.34 percent. Assuming that the PNC obtained its usual 40 to 42 percent of the votes, it means that in 2020 the AFC would likely have obtained 6 to 8 percent, down from its 10.32 percent in 2011. This enabled the PPP’s modest increase of 0.69 percent to restore its absolute majority status.

Thus, in the 1960s the parties were locked in at around 40+ percent and in the 1990s they were locked in at 50+ precent for the PPP and 40+ for the PNC subject, of course, to the variations in 2006 and 2011. Accusations of rigging against the PPP need to take account of these historic facts.

For the upcoming elections there are four new factors that might affect the results. The PPP claims that it has won over a great deal of African support from APNU. The PPP also claims that the massive developments in the country since 2020 due to income from oil will solidify support from all sections of the population. The third factor is the departure of several leading members from the PNC/APNU. The fourth element is the emergence of the WIN party which has been drawing large crowds, particularly among the African community. 

Nothing in Guyana’s history so far has broken the ethnic deadlock in voting patterns, except that AFC took its support from Africans in 2006 and both Africans and Indians in 2011.  Notwithstanding, in 2025 the PPP may gain some additional votes from the African Guyanese because of its extensive work since 2015 in African Guyanese communities. But there is unlikely to be a substantial swing in its favour. Turnouts at meetings and events do not translate into votes. Something more substantial must be evident before it can be concluded that there is a substantial ethnic swing towards the PPP. However, it is likely to increase its support. The impact of the WIN party is an imponderable. But its impact on the results of the main parties is not likely to be more than minimal. The AFC appears to haverun its course and is set for a decline of its support from its 6 to 8 percent. 

In the absence of polling, my predictions are guesswork but based on the unerring guide of the fixed voting patterns based on ethnicity, taking into account the varying circumstances as they emerge from time to time. Dissatisfaction with the leaderships of the political parties was the reason for the decline of the PNC’s votes in 2006 and the PPP’s votes in 2011, although the PPP attributed its loss to poor organization. On this occasion such dissatisfaction is only detected in APNU because of the number of persons who have resigned and declared support for President Ali.

Many people complain bitterly about ethnic voting patterns, and some make accusations against both political leaders and the electorate for encouraging or tolerating it. In fact, ethnic voting patterns is a reality of our history and nothing that anyone says or does will alter it. Only innovative governance systems canovercome the negative effects.