Fingerprinting and Finger-Pointing

Nov 05, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

…Peeping Tom

Kaieteur News- No one, not even the staunchest supporters of Guyana’s electoral process, would claim that the system is flawless. As with any democracy, there’s always room for improvement. But what continually lands Guyana’s elections in the crosshairs of controversy isn’t the absence of cutting-edge biometrics; it’s the deep-seated history of attempted electoral manipulation, which has cast a long shadow over our elections.

Guyana knows this better than most. Between 1968 and 1992, Guyanese lived under the weight of an authoritarian regime that systematically compromised elections. The People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) presided over those years, and during this period, elections were widely regarded as neither free nor fair. The resulting legacy of distrust, built over two decades, has left scars that have yet to fully heal. And so, any time an election approaches, the spectre of electoral rigging resurfaces, often louder than any call for system upgrades.

The latest cry is for fingerprint biometrics at polling stations, a technology that, while effective for preventing voter impersonation on the day of voting, is of little use against the broader issue of electoral fraud. This call, however, is not just a response to alleged vulnerabilities but serves another purpose. It shifts attention away from the real issue and plays into the narrative that the electoral system itself is broken. This sleight of hand conveniently glosses over a critical detail: the same system that APNU+AFC now questions was the very system that delivered them a victory in 2015.

Between 2015 and 2020, when APNU+AFC held power, there was ample opportunity to implement additional biometric reforms. The 2016 and 2018 local government elections, as well as the 2020 general and regional elections, all passed without these reforms being enacted by the ruling coalition. If APNU+AFC truly saw biometrics as a pressing need, why was there no initiative to include fingerprint technology in any of these elections?

The recent fixation on fingerprint technology as a fail-safe against election fraud is, therefore, puzzling at best and misleading at worst. If the coalition leaders believed that fingerprinting would fortify the process, they had both the time and the authority to make it a reality during their tenure. Their inaction suggests that the call for biometrics now is less about ensuring the integrity of elections and more about casting aspersions on the electoral system as an excuse for their defeat in 2020 and almost certain vanquishing in 2025.

But let’s look at the facts of the 2020 elections in which the Opposition APNU+AFC shamelessly disputed. The primary controversies did not stem from incidents at polling stations where fingerprint technology could have made a difference. No, the real trouble emerged in the aftermath, during the vote reconciliation process. Fraud, where it occurred, was not about individuals impersonating others at the voting booth; it was about tampering with the results once the votes had been cast. No fingerprint technology can address what happens after the ballots are dropped into the box.

The demand for biometric verification at polling stations is, therefore, a solution looking for a problem. Even the most ardent proponents of fingerprint technology would admit that its primary function is to prevent voter impersonation. Yet there is no verified evidence that this type of fraud has been an issue in Guyana’s 2020 elections. Instead, the outcry over the 2020 elections was largely focused on attempts to manipulate the vote count after the polls had closed. Fingerprint biometrics, however advanced, would not have prevented this.

What we are witnessing, then, is a classic red herring. The call for biometrics distracts from the genuine issues with vote reconciliation and results tabulation, areas where improvements are indeed necessary. By focusing the conversation on biometric technology, those calling for these changes are trying to shift the blame for their loss in 2020 onto the electoral machinery itself.

The irony, of course, is that in 2015, when the APNU+AFC coalition emerged victorious, there were no complaints about the system. That election was hailed as a triumph of democracy. If the electoral system could produce a valid result then why is it suddenly under such intense scrutiny now? The answer lies in the narrative that some are trying to weave—a narrative that deflects responsibility and undermines trust in the electoral process whenever results don’t swing in their favour.

No amount of fingerprinting will resolve the distrust that some are seeking to generate over the electoral process. Technology can enhance the integrity of a system, but it cannot replace the fundamental need for transparency and trust. The obsession with biometrics is, at its core, a distraction—an attempt to deflect blame from those who cannot come to terms with the reality of their 2020 loss, and the likelihood that they will be soundly defeated again next year.

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

(Fingerprinting and Finger-Pointing)

---

• 2020 Elections, APNU+AFC, biometrics, Guyana’s electoral process, The People’s National Congress Reform

---