A false panacea for electoral integrity

Nov 22, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

…Peeping Tom

kaieteur News – Advocates for fingerprint verification in Guyana’s elections herald it as a revolutionary advancement, a cure for the supposed infirmities of photo identification. But like so many reforms cloaked in the language of progress, this proposal warrants scrutiny not for its promises but for its omissions, and for the perils it obscures under the veil of infallibility.

At its core, the argument for fingerprint verification rests on the claim that photographs can be unreliable: people age, appearances change, and a snapshot taken years ago can bear little resemblance to the voter who presents it at the polling station. This observation, while superficially true, is disingenuous when framed as a fatal flaw. By this logic, the entire edifice of societal validation through photo identification collapses. Passports, driver’s licenses, and national IDs—documents we rely on daily to confirm identity—must then be dismissed as relics of an antiquated system. Yet, history offers no such verdict.

For decades, Guyana has conducted elections using photo identification, a method not without challenges but one that has proven, by and large, reliable. The imperfections of photo IDs are mitigated by election-day protocols: scrutineers cross-check physical appearances, electoral lists are scrutinized etc. These measures, collectively, have sustained electoral integrity in the face of far graver threats than an outdated photograph.

Enter fingerprint verification, a system that promises precision but carries the scent of Pandora’s box. The advocates fail to mention the immense logistical and technical hurdles that accompany its implementation. To enroll voters in such a system requires an exhaustive process of fingerprint collection and storage, raising questions about data security and accessibility. Fingerprints, unlike photographs, demand specialized equipment for both registration and verification, a financial and infrastructural burden that few developing nations can bear without external assistance—and the strings that often come attached.

But the technical challenges pale in comparison to the human factor. Biometric systems are notoriously sensitive to errors. Fingerprints can be difficult to capture accurately for manual laborers with worn or scarred hands, the elderly whose skin has thinned with age, or individuals with medical conditions that affect dermal patterns. False negatives—where a legitimate voter is denied their right due to a system failure—are as much a threat to democracy as the specter of voter fraud this system purports to eliminate. One can imagine the chaos of an election day where technology falters, and disenfranchised voters, armed with righteous indignation, take to the streets.

The timeline for implementing such a system must be interrogated. Elections are not merely logistical events; they are constitutional mandates. Introducing a new verification mechanism demands rigorous testing, public education, and, most crucially, political consensus. In a nation where electoral timelines are sacrosanct one must question whether this proposal is a genuine attempt to enhance voter confidence or a cleverly disguised stratagem to delay the inevitable. If history teaches us anything, it is that reforms introduced on the eve of elections are often less about principle and more about power.

One must also resist the allure of technological determinism—the fallacy that newer is always better or that technology can replace human judgment. The fetishization of technology, particularly in governance, often obscures the simple truth that no system is infallible. Indeed, fingerprint verification may resolve some issues, but it introduces others, often more insidious because they are hidden behind a veneer of sophistication.

What is most concerning, however, is the ease with which such proposals shift the conversation away from substantive electoral reforms. In a democracy, the focus must always be on expanding participation and ensuring fairness. The insistence on biometric verification as the silver bullet for electoral fraud distracts from the deeper, systemic issues such as lack of campaign finance transparency, and unequal access to media platforms.

At the heart of this debate lies a paradox. Those who champion fingerprint verification as a safeguard against disenfranchisement risk achieving the opposite. By complicating the voting process, they erect barriers for the very citizens they claim to protect. The elderly, the rural poor, and the technologically marginalised—those whose voices are most vulnerable to being drowned out—may find themselves excluded in the name of progress.

In the end, one must ask: who benefits from this proposal? The proponents paint a picture of a more secure electoral future, but the past whispers warnings of ulterior motives. Let us not forget that electoral integrity is not a function of technology alone; it is the product of trust, transparency, and a shared commitment to democratic principles. Fingerprint verification, for all its promises, cannot substitute for these. Perhaps that is the real flaw in the argument—its failure to recognise that democracy’s strength lies not in the sophistication of its mechanisms but in the simplicity of its ideals.

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

(A false panacea for electoral integrity)

---

• and national IDs, driver’s licenses, fingerprint verification, Passports, Peeping Tom, photo identification

---