Partisan Appointments Threaten Electoral Integrity at GECOM

Jan 07, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

The impartiality of electoral bodies is fundamental to the functioning of any democracy. In Guyana, the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is entrusted with the sacred duty of ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections.

However, appointments of CEO, DCEO, ACEO, Logistics Officer, Finance Officer and several Registration Officers – all critical positions within the organization reveal a troubling pattern of partisan bias, calling into question GECOM’s ability to effectively oversee the 2025 elections.  The pattern has been PPPC Commissioners supports, and the Chairman breaks the deadlock by always supporting the PPPC backed candidates.

Global Studies Highlight the Dangers of Partisanship

Numerous international studies have underscored the risks of partisan appointments to election management bodies. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) highlights that electoral commissions must be independent and impartial to maintain credibility. Their 2017 report, Electoral Management Design: The International IDEA Handbook, warns that partisanship within these bodies often results in electoral disputes, diminished voter confidence, and political instability.

In a study by the Electoral Integrity Project, nations with politically balanced and non-partisan electoral bodies scored significantly higher in measures of electoral integrity. For instance, the Canadian Electoral Commission, known for its strict adherence to impartiality, has been lauded internationally for fostering trust and reducing political polarization. Conversely, countries like Kenya and Zimbabwe, where electoral commissions were perceived as partisan, experienced widespread allegations of fraud, post-election violence, and public distrust.

Local Context and Widening Gaps

In Guyana, GECOM’s chairperson has repeatedly cast tie-breaking votes favoring candidates perceived to align with the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C). This pattern undermines the commission’s mandate of neutrality. Article 162 of Guyana’s Constitution mandates that elections be conducted impartially and with integrity. Yet, when qualified candidates are overlooked, it erodes the public’s faith in the institution.

Additionally, research by Transparency International indicates that perceived bias in election commissions leads to increased voter apathy and the delegitimization of electoral outcomes. This is particularly concerning for Guyana, where political tensions remain high, and even small lapses in electoral integrity could have far-reaching consequences.

Comparative Case Studies

– India: The Election Commission of India (ECI) is often cited as a model for impartiality. Its officers are selected through a transparent and non-partisan process, ensuring that no political party can unduly influence its operations. This approach has contributed to the ECI’s reputation as a fair arbiter, even in highly contentious elections.

– Mexico: The establishment of the National Electoral Institute (INE) in 1990 marked a turning point for Mexican democracy. INE’s autonomous and politically neutral framework helped eliminate decades of electoral fraud and ushered in an era of free and fair elections.

– Kenya: In contrast, Kenya’s Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) has faced repeated allegations of bias. Partisan appointments to the IEBC have fueled electoral disputes, leading to violent conflicts such as those following the 2007 elections.

 

*Implications for Guyana’s Democracy

The dangers of partisanship within GECOM cannot be overstated. As studies and international experiences show, biased electoral commissions are breeding grounds for corruption, disputes, and instability. Guyana, at a critical juncture in its political and economic development, cannot afford such risks.

The Path Forward

To restore public confidence, GECOM must urgently reform its appointment processes. Drawing from global best practices, this includes:

1. Implementing transparent selection criteria for key positions.
2. Establishing independent oversight mechanisms to audit decisions.
3. Adopting international standards for non-partisan governance, as exemplified by Canada and India.

Democracy thrives on trust, and GECOM’s current trajectory risks eroding that trust. As Guyanese citizens, we must demand an electoral commission that embodies impartiality and upholds the democratic principles upon which our nation was founded.  As it is GECOM in its current state cannot be trusted for the 2025 elections.

Regards

R. Williams

(Partisan Appointments Threaten Electoral Integrity at GECOM)

---

• GECOM, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Partisan Appointments, People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), Threaten Electoral Integrity

---