The question of electoral reform in its broadest sense has attracted attention. A case has been filed seeking an order that an individual can contest elections without having to be on a list of candidates. The law was passed pursuant to the constitutional reform process in 2000/2001 but regulations to effectuate it, though promised, were never made. Currently, to be a candidate,a person must be named on a list of candidates submitted by a political party or group. As regards a presidential candidate, the Constitution provides that he or she must be named as such on the list as the presidential candidate. Should this restriction on the right to run for president remain? A mixed electoral system, as recommended by the Constitution Reform Commission in 1999, was implemented for the 2001 election to provide for constituencies based on the ten Regions. The expressed intention at the time was that this temporary amendment to facilitate 2001 elections, which was due shortly, would be fully addressed more comprehensively after the elections. It never was. There is an extensive campaign for a new voters’ list, which I have supported, and biometric voting by way of fingerprints, which I have opposed.
The Government found the time and energy after the March 2020 elections to introduce and pass legislation to introduce election offences and impose heavy penalties for their violation and administratively divide up Region 4 for electoral purposes. The Government has since lapsed into somnolence even though it was expected that more substantial reforms would soon follow by way of constitutional reform. This process has not got off the ground.
Our election system is a mess, guided by a hodge-podge of laws. Little reform has taken place. It took years to persuade the government to pass a simple amendment to the National Registration Act to end the anomaly whereby the voters’ list, extracted from the national register, which registers only residents, contains names of only residents, when all Guyanese, wherever they may reside, have a right to vote. With this experience, I now believe that other amendments, outside of the Constitution, are not coming any time soon, especially since elections are due on or before the end of November. Reforms in relation to a new voters’ list, biometrics if the Government agrees to it, the electoral system, and others cannot be now accomplished within the time available. Even if the PPP/C wins the elections in 2025, there is no available evidence to suggest that a new Government will treat reforms to the electoral system with any urgency, despite the longstanding needs that have been identified for some and promises made in relation to others.
I listened to the Vice President’s press conference on Thursday last and was impressed with the developments which he enumerated in relation to opening up lands for agriculture that are not visible and do not get national attention, but which would be enormously impactful for the economic development for Guyana. We can all see the impressive strides which are being made in infrastructure, health, education, housing, legislative modernization, social development and in other areas. Even though poverty remains high because it is a very difficult condition to eliminate in a single generation, Guyana is visibly changing before our eyes. But electoral reform has been barely touched in five years, apart from those mentioned above.
During the court cases at election time, one or two of which I was involved in, and all of which I followed keenly, I greatly feared that the Court might hold that the Chief Election Officer cannot be restrained by the Elections Commission from announcing what he, and he alone, considered to be the true result of the elections. The relevant constitutional provision contains no clear provision against such a possibility, and he did announce results that were not reflective of the will of the Elections Commission. Fortunately, the Chief Justice ruled that the Chief Election Officer is not a “lone ranger” and cannot announce results at his whim and fancy. This vital legislative gap remains wide open, to be exploited again in the future if circumstances change in Guyana.
The Constitution provides for a mixed first past the post and proportional representation system if the legislature so determines. Therefore, since 1980 when this constitutional provision was enacted, the framers entertained the possibility that at some time in the future the Parliament may wish to pass the necessary legislation to facilitate a mixed system. In response to numerous representations in 1999, the Constitutional Reform Commission recommended a mixed system. As stated above, the Government and Opposition agreed to a severely limited form with a promise to do the hard work of reform after the 2001 elections. Neither the Government nor the Opposition has made any effort to fulfill this promise.
If the Government wants the public to take it seriously about electoral reform, the issue is so complicated and expansive, that it should promise that, if elected, it will appoint a Commission on Electoral Reform, which will work in tandem with the Constitution Reform Commission, if re-appointed after the elections, to inquire into the laws relating to elections, some being constitutional provisions and others being regular legislation, and make recommendations for amendments.