THE CARTER CENTRE’S PREELECTION GUYANA STATEMENT

The Carter Center (the Center) and its team visiting Guyana are experienced Guyana hands, who care about Guyana and its future. In its preliminary report the Center noted that it commenced work in Guyana in 1991 and observed 5 of Guyana’s elections out of the 125 it has observed worldwide. The Center noted that it has conducted a range of activities in Guyana, including helping Guyanese articulate a comprehensive vision and development strategy; supporting civil society groups working to advance the status of women, youth, and Amerindians; assisting judicial system reform programs in partnership with the High Court, the chief justice, the Guyana Bar Association, and the Guyana Association of Women Lawyers; facilitating conflict resolution efforts in support of peace and political dialogue; and supporting government, industry, and civil society stakeholders to comply with the requirements of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. What the Center did not mention is that the foundations of our electoral system, similar to those of most countries in the Caribbean Region and wider afield, were based on the reforms mediated by then head of the Center, former President Jimmy Carter.

In its Guyana Pre-election Statement the Center described its function as a “limited election observation mission” because it had not observed key pre-election activities, including nomination day and a series of campaign launches and campaign events, as part of its efforts to assess electoral preparations and the political environment in Guyana in advance of the September 1 elections. Had the Center had the opportunity of observing those pre-election activities, it could not have failed to conclude that campaign launches and campaign events were colourful, energetic and largely incident free. However, it did report that the campaign is peaceful with no major complaints of violence, although overheated rhetoric has been reported.

While there have been some recurring issues which have been flagged, the flood of complaints about the improbable PPP’s rigging that followed the 2020 elections, which was rejected by the Caricom Recount Report, have not been repeated. One would have expected that the defects in the electoral system that allowed thousands of fictitious votes that the PPP allegedly orchestrated in 2020 would have attracted major complaints, but it appears that no such issues were raised. 

The Statement noted the campaign has been peaceful but several issues risk undermining the integrity of the process. These include: local authorities’ approval of campaign events, alleged intimidation of public workers, and over-compliance by local banks with recent US sanctions. Campaign finance and media fairness are also concerns.  

The size of the electoral list is a matter of concern to political parties, particularly non-government parties. The report notes that the list consists of 757,690 names but declined to comment on the quality of the list as it had not observed its compilation. It did point out, however, that continuous registration, migration, and court rulings that names cannot be removed from the list because they no longer reside in Guyana, may have contributed to the size of the list. It noted that there are concerns among many Guyanese about the ”integrity of the voters’ list,” but did not offer any specific criticisms of the list based on its size. The Center is clearly not of the view that the fact that the list is “bloated” by itself precludes fair elections. If it had that view it would have said so. The Statement does not refer to any such proposition as being advanced by anyone. 

The Center reviewed the new changes and procedures that have been adopted through legislation, namely, tabulation, voter registration and others. In relation to tabulation, subdistricts were established in regions 3, 4 and 6, the most populous. Each subdistrict will have a supernumerary returning officer who shall have the same powers that a returning officer exercises in the district. Instead on 10 counting districts, there will now be 17. The transmission of election results has now been refined to eliminate the potential for fraud and to speed up the delivery of results. The amendments provide for the immediate online publication of the SOPs and the tabulation forms which contain the results of each ballot box. Once this system functions efficiently, election results will be known simultaneously as counting is completed, so that the electorate does no have to await a “lone ranger” chief election officer to announce results. These are probably two of the most significant reforms to the electoral system since 1992 and will add certainty and transparency to the electoral system. No election official will have the opportunity of time between voting and counting to manipulate results.

Among the matters of concern that the Center raised are: use of the State media to promote the ruling PPP and use of State resources to give the ruling PPP advantages. It concluded: “The Carter Center notes the ruling party has used state resources and benefited from biased media coverage, undermining the equitable treatment of candidate.” These are recurring issues and appear in the reports of observer teams at every election. While no specific instances have been given, the ruling party should be aware by now of the specific complaints. It is not too late to take steps to address these complaints and eliminate their negative impact.