Everything comes with a price

May 08, 2015 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The entire Guyanese population is seemingly in a state of euphoria, heightened somewhat by the presence of the international and GECOM accredited observers. The Pied Piper of Hamelin (and his entourage) has arrived and will oversee the process that rids the country of its vermins.  According to one writer, Hydar Ally in the Kaieteur News May 6, 2015 the presence of the observers is most reassuring.  Yes, there is no doubt that international election observation is viewed as being instrumental in increasing domestic confidence in the electoral process. However, while the observatory process has become highly popular, and monitoring can improve the quality of elections making incumbent turnover more likely, amidst this seeming acceptance and popularity lurk certain facets that should be either addressed or at best considered. At the very minimum the role of observers is to offer an independent assessment of the election process within a broader program of democracy promotion. Also a lot lies at stake within these professionalized observer groups, as they themselves are interested in providing accurate reports which dictates future invitations as well as putting their credibility and reputation on the line. International election observers do not monitor an election unless invited by the incumbent government.  These monitoring and observatory activities are inherently political, and research has shown that credible monitoring organizations  worry about funding, not inciting violence , pleasing important parties and the viability of their ongoing projects in a specific country.  So it can be clearly seen and logically deduced that financial, political  and other accompanying considerations can at times lead these said monitors to refrain from demonstrable criticism where it is due, or even to endorse elections where more caution would have been warranted.
Thus, political, financial, and other considerations at times lead monitors to refrain from clear criticism where it is due or even to endorse elections where more caution would have been justified.  Countries in question, for example this was especially likely in high-profile cases such as Afghanistan when geopolitical stakes are high for those who sponsor the monitors, or in potentially pivotal elections like those coming up in Myanmar in November.
However, as the practice of international election observation is becoming ubiquitous, it is in no way, shape or form ubiquitous. In spite of strong and sustained pressure, some countries have rebuffed international monitors, while others have become adept at extending invitations. In 2002 in Zimbabwe, the President Robert Mugabe officially prohibited the E.U from monitoring his election, but at the selfsame time admitted other organizations.  A Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and Code of Conduct for International Election Observers was spearheaded in 2005 by the United Nations.  All the ideals outlined in the declaration are truly laudatory and admirable, but on the issue of monitoring to change on the ground, that is the proverbial horse of a different colour.  These missions will need to gain greater independence which will ultimately obviate the need for them to run their assessments by their donors or worry about their long-term survival.  But herein lies the paradox — such decisions rest with their sponsors, who are guarding their own interests. A sponsor that is willing to provide complete freedom credibly and consistently across all elections probably does not currently exist, and with no hope of a future existence or resurrection.  Thus it can be safely concluded that monitoring organizations have their own political entanglements, practical constraints, and normative concerns that somehow or other water down their effectiveness.  How do organizations decide which countries to monitor, and furthermore on account of the variation in quality of the organization , the question “ who goes where  is also applicable.
Perhaps even as we welcome the observers, we should also hang our heads in collective shame that our very behavior has brought about their presence in our country and catapulted them to international fame, over what is, always and forever will be a bastion of national sovereignty—election.  While the monitoring of election remains a prominent tool for promoting election integrity and democracy, and we are greeting them with outstretched arms, let us ask ourselves, has there been any accomplishment? When organizations have to return to the same countries election after election, what are they accomplishing? After all, elections are representative of the most fundamental exercise of a citizen, the right to be included in the conversation, to express his/ her preference and to be counted. It is my fervent hope that come May 11, 2015 when the last vote has been deposited, the last ballot box sealed, the final vote counted, the winning party announced, the observers submit their findings and as they turn their back s on my Guyana Eldorado, heading to the countries which they call home, that it would mark their final visit in the capacity of election observer.  From May 11 onward individual growth should commence to the level where international election observation will be viewed as external meddling. Free and fair elections will be the order of the day, thereby restoring Guyana to a level of international legitimacy. It is a long road but the goal is not unattainable.
Yvonne Sam.

---

---