GECOM AND LOCAL OBSERVERS

Jul 29, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

When in a previous column it was suggested that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) should make a decision as regards local observers, it was not to indicate the absence of provisions for the recognition of local observers.
Such provisions are in place, and local observers are expected to operate within laid down guidelines and procedures.
But the mere existence of these procedures does not mean that everything is right in relation to local observers.
Thus, the reason for the suggestion that GECOM needs to make a decision, because there are serious issues to be ironed out in relation to how GECOM treats with local observers.
In its report on the 2006 General and Regional Elections, one of the locally accredited observer groups, the Elections Assistance Bureau (EAB), criticized certain aspects of the relationship between GECOM and the EAB.
Unless these issues are dealt with, unless GECOM is prepared to address some of these concerns, it makes no sense for local observers to be involved in local elections.
It is a significant development in our country’s electoral history that Guyana is evolving as a broad-based, non-partisan local observer grouping.
During the 2006 elections, the EAB was able to muster a large number of local volunteers to monitor the elections. This is good for Guyana and it is good for the electoral process.
Guyana needs to be able to develop a culture of local monitoring and pronouncement on its elections. Guyana also desperately needs to remove the stigma that has attracted it during the period when elections were rigged consistently.
Guyana has suffered for that, being deemed a pariah nation and an embarrassment to the English-speaking Caribbean.
The real heroes of the 2006 elections were not the political parties. They were the commissioners and staff of the Guyana Elections Commission, and more specifically the staff that manned the polling stations. They are the ones who demonstrated the professionalism necessary to bring off a successful election, unmarred by major controversy.
One of the reasons for the success of the elections had to do with the discipline of the polling officers and their staff.
They operated along the lines of their manuals and did not allow for deviations. They stuck to the rules and were strict about this.
All this was done under the oversight of local observers operating under the umbrella of the Elections Assistance Bureau (EAB).
The EAB was accredited by GECOM, but there were serious problems that affected the involvement of EAB.
The EAB has mentioned the problems they faced with GECOM in their report on the elections. Among the problems they said they faced was the issuance of identification cards.
The EAB in its annual report, which is publicly available online, charged that GECOM retreated from an earlier commitment to provide EAB observers with individual identification cards. The EAB in its report noted that for the 1992, 1994 local government elections, and the 1997 and 2001 elections, GECOM had provided observers with identity cards.
These cards are absolutely necessary for admission to polling stations. The EAB held to its position that for GECOM to relinquish direct control over authorization of access to polling stations, might lead to serious consequences. It is not hard to predict those consequences. In plain story, some observers might be allowed access while others would be locked out.
The EAB, according it its report, was willing to withdraw from observing elections if GECOM refused to issue identification cards.
The issue was eventually reportedly resolved after instructions were given to the Information Technology Department to produce the observer identification cards, but there never ought to have been any problems with this.
GECOM has to identify the authorized observers. The delay in resolving this issue adversely affected the work of the EAB.
GECOM needs to carry out an investigation as to just who was behind this process of frustrating the EAB, and that person should be asked to proffer an explanation, and if need be, remove himself or herself from any future involvement in elections.
The other problem that the EAB raised in its report on the 2006 elections was the non-issue of employment letters that would have allowed the observers to vote at polling stations at which they were stationed.
In this instance, the position of GECOM is correct. GECOM cannot issue letters of employment to observers to facilitate them voting at the polling stations where they are deployed.
Only polling staff is allowed the facility of voting at the polling stations where they work. Since observers are not polling staff and are not employed by GECOM, they cannot be given any letters of employment.
It is however hoped that if need be, the law or whatever else needs to be done, will be done to ensure that observers can vote at the polling station where they are stationed.
These are just some of the reasons why GECOM needs to make a decision and make it early about local observers and the level of cooperation they are willing to give.
It is not just about accreditation. It is also about putting things in place to allow the effective performance of observers.
And based on the report of the EAB for the 2006 elections, GECOM has a lot of decisions to make.

---

---