Democracy is under threat

Oct 07, 2018 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

Local government elections are not under threat. The biggest threat is towards democracy and not just as the local level but also at the national level.
The PPP/C is not the source of that threat. The PPP/C has no reason to derail local government elections. The PPP/C convincingly won the 2016 local government elections by 25,000 votes, a margin that is greater than its victory in the 2004 general and regional elections.
The PPP/C won the most NDCs but took a mauling from the APNU+AFC in the municipalities some of which were newly created, is it suspected, to undercut the PPP/C’s support in regions dominated by the PPP/C. The PPP/C, for example, since 1992, has always won by a large margin the Barima-Waini Region. It controls the RDC in that region. The creation of a new town allows the APNU+AFC an administrative foothold.
The same applies to Lethem and Region Nine. The PPP/C has won that region in past general and regional elections. The creation of the town of Lethem led to a win, the local government elections, for the APNU+AFC, thereby handing it an administrative foothold within that area.
The much-vaunted creation of new towns must therefore be seen in the context of the attempt by the APNU+AFC to gain administrative control in regions which they have lost. It is more a threat to democracy than a good.
The second threat to democracy comes from the gerrymandering of boundaries of NDCs. A number of new constituencies have suddenly popped up for this year’s local government elections. Others have been altered.
The last local government elections were held two years ago. What could have changed in terms of demographic shifts in those two years to justify the shifting and rearrangement of boundaries and the creation of new municipalities? One of the arguments which has been raised is that these new arrangements are intended to reduce the PPP/C’s control of NDCs.
Citizens have a right to approach the courts to challenge what they see as unlawful and unconstitutional acts. The gerrymandering of constituencies is a danger to democracy. What is being challenged is the procedures employed to establish and alter boundaries, not the right to do so and therefore this challenge should not be interpreted as an attempt to derail local government elections.
The court is the guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law. Approaches to the court must never be seen as frustrating democracy because democracy is always strengthened by the rule of law.
The third threat to democracy is the controversy which has erupted over the appointment of a Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission and not the legal challenge to this appointment. There need to be public confidence in the independence of GECOM. The manner in which the Chairman was appointed, has hurt public confidence in that process because it was seen as a unilateral appointment and not a consensual one.
The Carter formula, regardless of its defects, was intended to allow for a consensual arrangement. It was aimed to ensuring that someone, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, and not objectionable to the President was appointed.
The Court of Appeal – and eventually the Caribbean Court of Justice – will rule on the constitutionality of the appointment. But none of those ruling will remove the loss of political and public trust over the manner in which the President went ahead and made this appointment. It has done terminal injury to public confidence in the electoral machinery and this is something which should be acknowledged. There will be a loss of public confidence in the elections machinery and consequently a loss of confidence in elections results, if more than half of the population is dissatisfied with the manner in which the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission was appointed.
Fourth, public confidence in the elections commission has been shaken by concerns over meritocracy within that body. In a racially polarized society, the need for racial and ethnic balance should not be understated. As one analyst pointed out, the absence of ethnic balance presents a real and present danger. Merit should never be sacrificed for racial balance but the lack of racial balance, in a racially polarized society, raises concerns about meritocracy and impartiality.
Finally, the racial polarization of our society cannot be laid squarely at the feet of our politicians. The politicians are products of a society which is racially divided. Most of them are not racists; they are victims of the racism within our society. And when it comes to elections, ethnic insecurity leads to the domination of race-based voting.
Democracy is under threat, not local government elections. Democracy is under threat by gerrymandering, the loss of public confidence in GECOM and racial polarization.

---

---