The curve which cannot be bent

Apr 17, 2020 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The belated attempt by APNU+AFC to swing official US opinion in Washington is a clear case of the Coalition lacking a proper understanding of international politics. If it had such an understanding, the Coalition’s approach to the issue of the electoral impasse would have been different.
The problems with Guyana’s general and regional elections emerged six weeks ago. Three days after the elections, the United States, European Union, Canada and the United Kingdom questioned the credibility of the results given the problems which emerged during the tabulation of District 4.
On 14th March, the same western countries, having witnessed Mingo at work, threatened international isolation if a President was sworn-in on the basis of discredited results. In the days and weeks that followed, the international community, including CARICOM, the Commonwealth and the Organization of American States, made known their concerns over the elections. They had nothing but unflattering words to say following Mingo’s mingimingi tabulations.
The Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom and the Secretary of State of the United States, two of the most powerful men in the world, made it clear that anything other than credible results would invite serious implications.
APNU and the AFC ignored these warnings, no doubt believing that they would stretch out the elections controversy until they would have worn their opponents down, and until the international community forgot the conspiracy which had taken place with the electoral process.
Things got to a stage where the government became so cocky in their belief that they could rule on the basis of rigged elections, that they alleged external interference in the internal affairs of the state and, in response to the criticisms levelled, said that Guyana was a sovereign state. The local US Embassy issued a stinging rebuke to them on this score, lecturing the government on the principle of non-interference.
The government still seemed unbothered by the threat of sanctions emanating from western capitals. They actually believed they could get away with stealing the elections. So what now accounts for this about-turn?
They were wrong. And it has taken them six weeks to realize the folly of their ways. They have had a rude awakening. And it is not easy to guess the reasons why they have now come to their senses.
The pressure may have moved from the mere threat of sanctions to the actual imposition of targeted sanctions. It is quite possible that some government officials and their immediate family members may have already received notification about possible revocation of their visas. Some of them with funds in foreign banks may have received red flags on their accounts, thus triggering the last-minute attempt to lobby Washington.
APNU+AFC is now scurrying to do what should have been done five weeks prior. It is too late. The infection of illegitimacy has risen to a level where it cannot be reversed; the curve cannot be bent.
The hiring of a legal firm to undertake lobbying on behalf of the government is a waste of time and money. The government says that the funds are being sourced from the Coalition’s supporters. It is highly improper for partisan funds to be used to finance representation on behalf of government.
The lobbying will not change the narrative. Western nations are cemented in their conviction about the conduct of the general and regional elections. The misconduct in the District 4 tabulation process was done in full view of international observers and the representatives of the western countries.
Nothing which the government’s lobbyists can do now will change what the observers and representatives saw. They had a front seat view of the rigging. They saw the players. They know who was threatening who, within and outside Ashmin’s building. They know who was locked away in their offices. They know who did not intervene. They know who came and threatened to withdraw the accreditation of the observers, and by now they would have known who sent that person to do so.
The United States Secretary of State does not make a public statement threatening serious consequences, unless he has at his disposal all the facts, and unless those facts have been properly vetted. He would have been thoroughly briefed, as would have been his colleague in the United Kingdom, the Foreign Secretary.
The only way out for APNU+AFC would be for it to accept the democratic will of the people and step down. Some of them know, however, that given their age and discredited reputations, they will not have another chance. And therefore they do not want to step down. They and their families will have to face the consequences. They may already be doing so.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

---