A note to GECOM

May 28, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News-  Guyana does not move at the pace of its dreams. It moves often by the clumsy coordination of its institutions. And among the most necessary of these institutions—though not the most efficient—is the body called GECO – the Guyana Elections Commission.

But let us not be too unfair. GECOM is not tasked with writing poetry or planting flowers; its job is the holding of elections— an often unsightly, thankless, but necessary job.

Now, a date has been announced for general and regional elections—September 1, 2025. Not a date handed down from heaven, but one that could serve us well enough if we are willing to work toward it.

Having an election in September would save us from tensions over the fate of Christmas. It will allow us to watch the CPL final with the elections behind us. And start the New Year with an elected government in place.

Now it is the President who sets the date, and the Commission must follow suit. That is the law, or at least the agreed-upon etiquette of constitutional order. And yet, one senses the familiar panic that afflicts bureaucracies whenever deadlines are named.

It is not for GECOM’s Commissioners to decide whether they like the date. Their responsibility is to make themselves ready. It is the Chief Elections Officer who must measure the distance between now and then, who must glance at his calendar and say, “Yes, we can be ready,” or “No, we cannot,” and explain why. The Commissioners are not forecasters of institutional weather; they are stewards, not oracles.

If there is a dispute over the calendar—if September 1 seems too close and the gears of the Commission too rusted to turn in time—then let us not end up in indecision. There are honest brokers in the world. Invite one. A reputable international organisation—say the Commonwealth Secretariat, or the United Nations Electoral Assistance Division—can be asked to do what we here are sometimes afraid to do for ourselves: assess, objectively and briskly, whether GECOM can be in a state of readiness for 1^st September. This does not require an expeditionary force. Just a week’s worth of quiet desk work and a report—lean, factual, and unbeholden.

A desk study is not a constitutional overhaul. And if GECOM has indeed been doing its job, then such a study should reveal no fatal unpreparedness. If, on the other hand, it exposes soft spots, then better to know them now than to lament them later in the courts or the streets.

We have danced this waltz before. There is always a quarrel about readiness. Part of that is political and part is excuse-making. But democracy, if it is to mean anything beyond a chant or slogan, requires elections that are timely and trusted. And timeliness must ensure the people’s right to choose.

Timelines must be credible. If the electoral machinery cannot function by September 1, let us hear the reasons for this. Let the Chief Elections Officer state his case. And if there is uncertainty, bring in an honest arbiter—foreign, impartial, and swift.

GECOM should not fear this. On the contrary, it should welcome it as a demonstration of its seriousness. An institution that believes in its own competence should have no objection to having it scrutinised. And if GECOM is behind schedule, then now is the moment to say so—not in a murmur but in a measured report that the public can see and understand.

Time is both short and plentiful, depending on how one uses it. September 1 is not tomorrow, but it is also not forever away. What is needed now is resolve—not more meetings, not more procedural hesitations, but a straightening of the spine and a clearing of the throat. Democracy is not a game of “maybe.” It is a matter of “when,” and the answer must not be left to drift on the breeze.

We can ill afford quarrels and divisions that risk casting doubt on the integrity of our electoral machinery and undermine confidence in the electoral process. If the house is Commission is divided—if there is disagreement over timelines or preparedness—then let us not linger in uncertainty. Call in an objective, reputable arbiter to conduct a rapid, independent assessment of the electoral body’s readiness for the September polls.

So, let the Chief Elections Officer speak now.  Let him state with certainty whether GECOM can meet the deadline of 1^st September. And if there is still uncertainty, then let an international team be called in if needed to undertake a three-day rapid assessment of GECOM’s readiness. And then let GECOM do what it was built to do—quietly, efficiently, and without drama.

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

---

---