On free and fair elections

Mar 04, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – You have heard the phrase ‘free and fair elections’ used to describe an element of the democratic process – the holding of elections. And mistakenly, there are persons who use the terms ‘free’ and ‘fair’ interchangeably without understanding the difference.

Free elections refer to the ability of all eligible candidates and citizens to participate in the electoral process without prohibition, coercion, intimidation, or undue influence. In free elections, citizens have the freedom to express their political preferences without fear of reprisal or discrimination.  In the case of both candidates and citizens this includes the freedom to campaign, express political opinions, and cast their votes without interference from the government or other actors.

Fair elections, on the other hand, refer to the impartiality and transparency of the the electoral process. Fair elections ensure that all candidates and political parties have equal opportunities to compete for votes, and that the rules governing the electoral process are applied consistently and without bias. Fair elections also involve mechanisms to prevent fraud, manipulation, or irregularities that could undermine the integrity of the electoral outcome.

This framework applies to both elections for political office as it does for elections to appoint executives of a body. Freeness and fairness should be upheld in all kinds of elections.

This past weekend there was an election to appoint a committee to manage the affairs of the Guyana Public Service Credit Union. And surprisingly before the actual voting took place, it was reported that there was a motion that was overwhelmingly passed prohibiting certain persons from contesting the elections.

It is my considered opinion that so long as these persons qualified by virtue of the rule of the Credit Union, that they should have been allowed on the ballot. Unless, the court specifically ordered that none of them should be allowed to contest for office, then this means that there was a restriction on their participation in the elections. Therefore, the elections cannot have been deemed to be free even though it may have been fair.

If true, there was no reason for such a motion. Based on the numbers that voted for the motion, it was clear that the persons prohibited stood little chance of winning any position up for contest. As such, the persons should have been allowed, if they so desired and were qualified, to contest the elections.

I have seen other elections in other organizations in which there was great hurry to close nominations. Someone would nominate someone and then before any other nominations were made, a motion would be moved to close nominations, thus preventing others from contesting.

The practice of hurriedly closing nominations severely restricts the principles of free and fair elections by stifling competition and limiting the choices available to voters. Firstly, this practice undermines the democratic ideal of inclusivity. It prevents potential candidates from participating in the electoral process. In a truly democratic system, individuals should have the opportunity to put themselves forward as candidates and present their platforms to the electorate. By hastily closing nominations, the electoral process becomes exclusionary, denying aspiring candidates the chance to contribute to the political discourse and offer alternative perspectives.

Secondly, the rushed closure of nominations undermines the principle of fair competition by creating an unfair advantage for incumbent candidates or those with established support networks. Without adequate time for other candidates to enter the contest, the electoral playing field becomes skewed in favor of those who are already well-known or well-connected.

The practice of hurriedly closing nominations has been known to be used to shut out others from competing. This by no stretch of the imagination can be said to be consistent with the freeness or fairness of the process.

Guyana has a history of electoral malpractices involving the now main Opposition party. And certain of those practices associated with rigging an election have creeped into the electoral process of social organizations. And at times, it has led to the disingenuous process of using the courts to maintain the status quo ante and prevent a change in the administration. Those who have followed developments in cricket administration in the past will understand what I am referring to.

We must create a culture of freeness and fairness in our elections, at the political level and at the social level. People must learn to appreciate the value of winning elections freely and fairly. If you lose an election, freely and fairly, accept your defeat graciously.

Compete fiercely and but fairly. And in so doing the winning will be much sweeter.

 

 

---

• Credit Union, f the electoral outcome, Guyana Public Service, mechanisms, opposition, the holding of elections

---