OBSERVING THE MAY 11 POLLS

Feb 06, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Instead of many local observer groups to the 2015 elections, the respective groups with an interest in being observers should come together under a single umbrella body.
It is always difficult in small societies like Guyana for groupings to be able to field significant numbers of volunteers to cover all of the polling stations in Guyana. But if all those interested, come together under a single umbrella, there remains a greater chance of this happening.
The Private Sector Commission and Guyana Trades Union Congress have in the past expressed an interest in monitoring elections. But they could never individually field sufficient observers to cover every polling station.
The Electoral Assistance Bureau (EAB) is the largest election monitoring grouping. But during the 2011 elections, it was only able to monitor about 75% of all of the polling stations. In a country where a few thousand votes can decide a seat, this level of monitoring is inadequate. In a country where it is possible for a party to lose its majority because the results of seventeen polling stations were left out of the official count, having a seventy-five per cent reach is not good enough.
This may seem surprising to many, because in most countries the observers do not cover more than 20% of the polling stations. In Guyana, however, the conduct of the polling is hardly ever the problem. Polling generally goes off smoothly, with only a few incidents here and there. The problem arises because of suspicions over the count and the reporting of that count. These suspicions are only going to be erased if there are observers at every polling station, and not just at seventy-five per cent.
The EAB, as seen in 2011, does not have the capacity or resource base to cover by itself all of the polling stations. The fact that it only fielded observers at 75% of the polling stations raises serious questions as to its ability to determine whether there were irregularities at those stations that it did not monitor, and where there was likely, because of its absenteeism, voting irregularities. The EAB for example remains very silent, as have the entire media corps and GECOM, about the accusation made that one week after the results of the 2011 elections were declared, it was revealed that some seventeen polling stations from Region 3, a region which the ruling party won convincingly, were not tallied in the final results. It is felt that if this were done, the PPPC would have secured its majority. The silence on this charge made by a GECOM insider, has been deafening and disturbing.
Given the changes that were made since 2001 to the electoral system, all elections in Guyana are going to be close races. It is not likely that any political party is going to command a majority of more than four seats in any election. This is because there are now forty seats being contested for by the entire electorate voting as a single constituency.
But then the country is divided into ten geographical constituencies which approximate to the country’s ten administrative regions. These ten regions compete for twenty-five parliamentary seats using a formula that creates certain advantages for smaller parties.
With this system in place, all elections are going to be close races, and therefore the monitoring of the votes at each polling station assumes a higher significance. It is therefore important that every single polling station is monitored. But there are resource constraints, limitations, and issues of credibility involved in any single grouping undertaking this task.
The EAB has a checkered history in monitoring elections. In 1992 it abandoned the process of monitoring the elections after elements within the PNC took to violent looting in the city. In 1997, the EAB discredited itself when one of its leading members, Hugh Cholmondeley, now deceased, instead of pronouncing on the election results, took to a shuttle diplomacy between the PNC and the PPP.
In 2011, the EAB could only monitor 75% of the polls and was dependent on other sources to supply it with the results at the remaining polling stations. This was obviously as a result of resource constraints.
The Private Sector Commission knows that peace and stability in the country depend on acceptance of the results. To the extent that there can be local observers, this will allow for a wider acceptance of the results, and thus reduce the opportunity for instability.
The Private Sector Commission should commit to working with the EAB to ensure that there are observers at each of the close to 2,000 polling stations, including the ones in the Pakaraimas.

---

---