GECOM is unravelling the democratic process it has been put in place to secure

Jan 24, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

I was not particularly surprised by the recent decision by the Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), Justice (ret’d) Claudette Singh, to rule against the implementation of biometric voting in this year’s general and regional elections. It is not only worrying but also a significant blow to the integrity of Guyana’s electoral process.

More, this ruling coming at a time when questions surrounding electoral transparency and fairness are at their peak, casts a very dark shadow over the credibility of the upcoming elections, later this year. It is not only troubling but beyond disappointing given the ample time GECOM had to implement biometric systems if it truly wished to enhance the credibility of its operations. It now appears that GECOM is happy and contented with the high levels of inefficiencies and its systemic problems and failures in almost every phase of its work. If it were not so then the commission would have grasped the opportunity to improve its operation by implementing biometric systems.

A serious criticism of the ruling is the fact that this issue has been raised and debated for years. The question of biometric voting emerged in the aftermath of the highly contentious 2020 elections, which were marred by allegations of vote manipulation, irregularities, and opaqueness. These concerns, combined with a growing public demand for electoral reforms, made it clear that a more secure and trustworthy voting system was urgently needed. Therefore, it is important to note that GECOM has had ample time to implement biometric systems ahead of the 2025 elections. However, rather than adopt a proactive stance on the issue, GECOM has allowed the matter to remain unresolved for years.

With discussions about biometric voting being raised as early as 2020, and the facility of consultations and technical assessments available to the Commission, the argument that there was insufficient time to put the system in place does not pass muster. The logistical challenges of implementing biometric voting were well-known but GECOM had the duty to begin addressing these concerns long before now. With several years of lead time, there was no reason why biometric identification systems could not have been integrated into the electoral process in time for these elections.

Again, the Chairperson’s decision against biometric voting is not just an unfortunate procedural setback- it is a serious indictment against the very integrity of the upcoming elections. The absence of biometric safeguards means that the current systems used by GECOM remain vulnerable to manipulation and fraud. In a political climate where trust in the electoral process has been severely eroded, this ruling serves to further diminish public confidence.

It is common knowledge that biometric voting provides a crucial step toward mitigating electoral fraud by ensuring that each voter’s identity is verified before they cast their ballot. The system could have significantly reduced the chances of voter impersonation, multiple voting, and other forms of electoral malpractice. By shunning this proposal, GECOM is effectively endorsing a system that many Guyanese see as outdated, easily susceptible to exploitation, and inherently flawed.

For me, the Commission’s failure to implement biometric systems can only be viewed as a lack of commitment to addressing these fundamental concerns.

In a real sense, the ruling also raises troubling questions about the true intentions of those in charge of GECOM. Was the rejection of biometric voting driven by a genuine inability to implement the system in time, or is there a hidden agenda behind this decision? Whatever the answer, the result is the same: the integrity of the upcoming elections is terribly compromised, and many citizens are left wondering if their vote will even count.

Moreover, the ruling also highlights a broader issue with GECOM’s transparency and accountability. For an institution that is supposed to be the bedrock of Guyana’s democratic process, GECOM has too often demonstrated a lack of responsiveness to the felt needs and concerns of the public.

The Commission’s ability to act with speed and decisiveness has been called into question repeatedly, whether during the post-2020 election crisis or in matters such as the implementation of biometric voting. The absence of clear, convincing communication from GECOM about the reasons for its decision only adds fuel to the fire. Instead of engaging with the public in an open and transparent manner, the Commission has left many questions unanswered, further deepening public suspicion. If GECOM is to regain the public’s trust, it must demonstrate a willingness to listen to the concerns of the people, provide clear explanations for its decisions, and take proactive steps to safeguard the electoral process.

All in all, the refusal to adopt biometric voting systems is a decision with far-reaching consequences for Guyana’s democracy. It signals to the electorate that their concerns about electoral integrity are not being taken seriously. In a country where political divisions run deep, and where electoral legitimacy is already very fragile, this ruling risks further undermining confidence in the democratic process.

Whilst I am aware that biometric voting is not a silver bullet that can solve all of the challenges facing Guyana’s elections, it is an essential tool that would have contributed to a more transparent and secure process. However, the Chairperson’s ruling against it facilitated not only a missed opportunity to improve the electoral system but also created an inability for that constitutional body to uphold the principles of free, fair, and credible elections. In essence, by the ruling of the Chair on this urgent issue, GECOM is unravelling the very democratic process it has put in place enhance and secure.

Regards,

Roysdale Forde SC

(GECOM is unravelling the democratic process it has been put in place to secure)

---

• biometric voting, electoral fraud, electoral process, GECOM, political climate

---