International conciliation is needed to resolve the political crisis

Mar 17, 2019 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

While the government and the opposition are butting heads as to who is right or wrong, the country is careening towards a constitutional crisis. Both sides are keen to demonstrate that they are in the right, while the political environment becomes more polarized.
The public is the least interested in objectively deciding who is right and who is wrong. The public is divided; they have already taken sides. Half stand with the government and the other half with the opposition.
The President issued a statement explaining his government’s position. This was followed almost immediately by a statement from the opposition seeking to counter those arguments.
The two sides have expounded on their positions. Arguments and counter arguments will get us nowhere. The reality is that there is a problem which we now face. Arguing about who is right and who is wrong will not solve that problem.
International conciliation is urgently needed to resolve the political crisis. Given the divisions within society, what Guyana needs is someone to intercede between the two sides.
Guyana has been this way before. In 1990, Guyana faced a similar situation to the one which is now being experienced.
By then the global order had changed dramatically. The Cold War had ended. As such, the United States could no longer justify turning a blind eye to electoral malpractices around the world. In fact, it began to view democratic governments as a means of entrenching free markets in the post-Cold War era. It was therefore no longer in the mood to prop up undemocratic regimes, as it had done in the past.
The PNC resisted democratic transition. It was initially not interested in the electoral proposals which were being demanded by the opposition. It wanted business as usual.
The preliminary voters’ list published by GECOM in October 1990 was highly flawed, as was confirmed by a sample test done on the list. House-to-house verification done by the opposition and the Electoral Assistance Bureau also confirmed that the list was terminally flawed. This exacerbated fears that the elections were once again going to be rigged.
A political crisis ensued, with each side seeking to prove that they were in the right, much like what is taking place now. Enter Jimmy Carter in a two-day visit in October 1991, during which he brokered significant reforms – house-to-house registration to create a credible voters’ list and the preliminary counting of the votes at the place of poll.
The PNC government responded favourably to these reforms and legislation was passed to give effect to them. A constitutional amendment was also passed to allow for the life of the government to be extended, since it had come to a natural end.
Later, in order to ensure greater confidence in the election management, proposals were made by Carter for a new formula for constituting the Elections Commission. This too was incorporated into the law, but the old formula was also retained as an option open to the President.
The results of all of these reforms, brokered by the Carter Center, was that the life of the government was extended, a preliminary count of ballots took place at the polling stations and a new Commission, headed by Rudy Collins, was put in place. Guyana had its first free and fair elections in 28 years and reentered the democratic fold of nations.
Guyana now faces another constitutional crisis. A solution has to be found. The current and counter-currents of arguments as to who is right and who is wrong will not solve that problem.
Unfortunately, these arguments have found traction in the respective political camps, thereby continuing to divide the country along political lines and raising tensions.
An honest local broker acceptable to both sides may be hard to find. As such, international conciliation, similar to what took place between 1990 and 1991 is needed.
Jimmy Carter may no longer be the man for the job, but he certainly can help both sides to accept the need for a conciliator. Someone from the Caribbean such as Dr. Ralph Gonsalves may be acceptable to both sides. He is politically experienced, is a constitutional lawyer, and is known and respected by both the government and the opposition.
The government wants house-to-house registration and the opposition has lost confidence in the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission. Conciliation is needed to achieve an agreement that would bring a solution to the crisis.
The following are some proposals which can form the basis of an agreement:
1. A new Chairman of GECOM, acceptable to both sides, should be chosen to restore confidence in the Commission.
2. A technical evaluation, using statistical techniques, should be used to verify the extent to which the Voters’ List is flawed. (This was done in 2006 by an independent group). If it is established that the problem cannot be fixed through an extended Claims and Objections period, then a house-to-house registration should be used.
3. The Opposition should agree to support a constitutional amendment to extend the life of the government for as long as it would take to allow for the agreed reforms to become effective.
4. A larger international observer mission should be involved in monitoring the elections, commencing from the time an agreement is reached following conciliation.

As in 1991, the only way that international conciliation is going to be agreed to, is through international pressure. That pressure is at present not being sufficiently applied.

---

---