RING-A-RING A ROSES

Dec 08, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

Whenever a major party loses an election there are always certain gut reactions that follow. But at the end of all these reactions that party is forced to face the reality of its loss. It is the inevitable facing of this reality that many mass parties try to avoid because the consequence of the defeat is often increased demands for a revamp of the leadership. As such, parties that lose elections have to create distractions to avoid the political fallout from their electoral defeat.
One of the first gut reactions to electoral defeat is to claim that you were robbed. There was a time in Guyana prior to 1992 when elections were flagrantly rigged. But not anymore. There are far too many checks and balances.
The GECOM polling day staff, comprising ordinary citizens, have over the years delivered an honest election. As such claims about rigging cannot be sustained and more so now that the international observers have pronounced on Guyana’s elections as being free and fair.
The second gut reaction is the absence of fraud is to try to snatch a victory from defeat. The constitution of Guyana clearly states that the party with the largest block of votes gains the presidency, even if that block is not a majority. The gut reaction of a losing party which went into the elections knowing all along this rule is to still claim that there is a need for a national unity government because the ruling party did not gain a majority.
When it begins to dawn on the supporters of the losing mass parties that their best effort was not good enough, there is usually a call for the leadership to step aside. This is the worst nightmare of any mass party and this usually leads to a huge political fallout.
Mitigating the fallout requires creating political deflections. And this is exactly what is taking place in the streets of Georgetown at present. It is a deflection in order to ensure that the status quo does not change.
The deflection is the call for an all party verification of the statements of poll since it is claimed that there are a number of discrepancies. Well, when the PPP asked for a recount of a number of polling stations, this call was rejected by the very persons who are now calling for a verification of the statements of polls (SOPs).
The argument there was that the legal basis for the results was the SOPs and therefore there was no legality in the recount, even though the law does provide for recounts.
There is no legal basis for GECOM to undertake an all party verification. The final results have been declared and one does not know whether the statements of poll that the parties have in their possession have been tampered with.
So the only verification GECOM has to do is to verify its declared results with the statements of poll in its possession.
But if any of the opposition parties feel that there were discrepancies, then it should make public a sample of these discrepancies. After all, the final results have been declared and the party or parties would have their copies of the statements of poll. If there is any mistake, then this should be made public so that the public can judge whether the cumulative effect of any such mistakes will materially alter the overall results of the elections.
Those who are therefore calling for an all party verification of SOPs should therefore produce the evidence that the declared results differ from their copies of statements of polls. Only then can it be established that a credible case exists for an all party verification.
It must also be noted that there was a local observer mission and this mission is seeking to obtain statements of poll which it did not receive. Those making the charges of irregularities should await the tabulation by the independent observer groups before jumping to conclusion.
It seems impossible that the sum total of any mistakes made is going to allow any party to gain an additional ten per cent of the votes which would be necessary to win the presidency. As such one can speculate that the real intention of these protests that are taking place has nothing to do with the verification of the results but rather with seeking to mitigate the political fallout from the elections.
In many respects it is ironic that this is happening because very few observers would have given APNU a chance of doing as well as it did. Mr. Corbin’s strategy has obviously been a political masterstroke that has allowed the PNCR to regain considerable ground. And that is a major achievement.
But as it now seems it is not enough because there are forces positioning themselves to take over the leadership of the PNCR and this is what is playing out in the streets. There is political grandstanding to increase the popularity of candidates who have their eyes on the leadership of the PNCR as well as avoid the meltdown from these elections.

---

---