If the system is not broken why try to fix it?

Nov 12, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

…Peeping Tom

kaieteur News- A few years ago, I was at a private hospital watching the workers “clock-in” to work using fingerprint recognition technology. Interestingly, some of them had to scan their fingerprint numerous times before it was recognised. The machine refused to recognise the prints of others, forcing management to have to intervene to register the times at which these workers turned up for duty. Imagine what can result when such fingerprinting technology has to be deployed across almost 2,000 polling stations and for more than 400,00 eligible voters.

Fingerprint verification technology has been implemented in elections around the world to reduce voter fraud and improve identification accuracy. However, several countries have encountered notable problems with this technology, which have led to controversies, delays, and legal challenges. In the 2020 elections, Ghana’s Electoral Commission implemented biometric fingerprint verification as part of its voter identification process. While intended to enhance transparency, the system encountered significant problems, such as device malfunctions and cases where voters’ fingerprints could not be read. Technical issues were compounded by voter anxiety and skepticism, especially among elderly citizens, who found the process cumbersome. The verification delays also slowed down voting processes in certain areas, leading to long queues and voter frustration. These challenges prompted calls from political figures to re-evaluate the use of such technology in future elections.

Kenya adopted biometric verification technology in 2013 and again in 2017, with fingerprint verification as a key component. In 2017, problems with fingerprint scanners were widespread, leading to delays at polling stations. Many devices failed to recognize fingerprints accurately, especially for rural voters who, due to physical labour, often had worn fingerprints. This created significant delays, which some political groups claimed compromised the fairness of the election.

In Nigeria, biometric fingerprint verification was first used nationwide in the 2015 elections and continued in the 2019 elections. The technology faced frequent challenges, particularly in rural and high-density areas where the devices struggled with accuracy and network connectivity. In several cases, voters were turned away because the devices could not verify their fingerprints, often due to errors with the software or hardware failures. The challenges in 2015 led to calls for reforms, and by 2019, although some improvements were reported, the problems persisted. Critics argue that the technology contributed to voter disenfranchisement in both elections.

Afghanistan used biometric fingerprint verification in its 2019 presidential election in an attempt to mitigate fraud. However, the technology faced multiple issues: poor internet connectivity hindered the uploading of verification data, and many devices malfunctioned or failed to recognize fingerprints accurately. Election observers reported widespread technical difficulties that resulted in delayed voting, particularly in rural areas where infrastructure was limited. This led to accusations of disenfranchisement and allegations that the technical failures disproportionately affected certain areas, casting doubt on the overall fairness of the election.

These instances illustrate that while fingerprint verification technology can bolster election security, it also presents significant challenges, particularly in regions with infrastructural and technical limitations. Recurrent issues with device reliability, network access, and voter accessibility have led to calls for improved technology and, in some cases, for alternative methods to ensure fair and efficient electoral processes.

In Guyana, members of the Opposition are increasingly calling for the implementation of fingerprint technology in the electoral process. Their advocacy, however, has stirred questions about the intent behind the suggestion, as introducing fingerprint authentication would necessitate a fresh registration exercise across the country. This may be the ultimate aim of the call for the introduction of the technology.  The need for a new registration process so close to the upcoming elections could be viewed as a tactic to complicate or delay the elections, raising suspicions that the push for fingerprint technology is motivated by political aims rather than the genuine need for system improvements.

Critics of the introduction of fingerprint verification technology argue that the current polling system is not in disrepair, so there is little rationale for such a drastic overhaul. In a country where election results have historically been extremely close, even minor disruptions to the voter registration process could lead to widespread discontent and mistrust in the election results. The introduction of fingerprint technology would likely create challenges, including the potential disenfranchisement of eligible voters who might face difficulties with registration or verification. This is a serious concern in a democratic society where the fairness and inclusivity of the electoral process are paramount, especially considering Guyana’s history of contested election results.

To mitigate these risks, it would be prudent to consider a phased approach to fingerprint technology, beginning with local government elections where the voter turnout is low. This gradual implementation would allow election authorities to address any operational issues and make necessary adjustments before applying it to general and regional elections.

A controlled rollout would also help build familiarity and confidence in the new technology, easing the transition for both voters and officials. Testing the system in local elections could reveal potential challenges, such as technology malfunctions, which could then be resolved before broader application in general and regional elections.

Political parties themselves could set an example by adopting fingerprint technology at their internal congresses. However, rushing the implementation for the 2025 general and regional elections without adequate testing would risk destabilising an already delicate electoral situation. The untested, nationwide rollout of fingerprint technology could create confusion and heighten tensions, potentially undermining the integrity of the electoral process.

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

(If the system is not broken why try to fix it?)

---

• eligible voters., fingerprint recognition technology, Peeping Tom, skepticism, voter anxiety

---