Constitutional rules must be followed to remedy the current elections impasse

Dear Editor,

It is very unfortunate that a date for the general election hasn’t been called yet. Just recently, GECOM’s Secretariat proposed a timeframe of March 2020, which is long after the three months mandated by Article 106 (7) of the Constitution of Guyana. Given the successful passage and legitimacy of the no-confidence vote of December 21st, 2018, any date that further prolongs the holding of the general election outside of three months would stifle the Constitution. There would be serious political and legal repercussions if political agents do not uphold constitutional law.

However, there is mass confusion that is contributing to political instability and a series of misunderstandings. This mass confusion we are referring to is being encouraged by some of the politicians with their partisan rhetoric. One such confusion being propagated has to do with who is responsible for setting a date for elections. Another confusion has to do with what exactly is the Guyana Elections Commission’s role in meeting the date for an election. We wish to add some clarity with the following points.

1. Only the president can call a date for an election within three months after Parliament has dissolved. Article 61 of the Constitution of Guyana grants exclusive authority and responsibility to the president to call a day “appropriate.”
2. If a date cannot be met within three months, for whatever reason, only Parliament can extend the timeframe for an election. It is important to note that Article 106 (7) does not allow nor grant privilege to Parliament to set a date for an election; Parliament can only deliberate on extending the timeframe.
3. GECOM cannot set a date for an election after the successful passing of a no-confidence motion; only the president can. Moreover, GECOM cannot deliberate on an election timeframe, only Parliament can.

Back in February of this year, while speaking to reporters, Mr Vincent Alexander, GECOM Commissioner, said, “The president has to give a date for elections and that is what GECOM has to work with.” GECOM must be in a perpetual state of readiness for any election, a view shared by the Caribbean Court of Justice and supported by the laws governing GECOM’s operations. The role of GECOM is to be “responsible for the administration and conduct of elections in Guyana.”

At the Caribbean Court of Justice, GECOM’s lawyer, Mr Stanley Marcus, told the courtroom that, based on the institution’s feedback, GECOM would be plausibly ready for an early general election on December 25th, 2019, with a prepared voters’ list, thereby placing the holding of the general election in the year 2020—the year it is originally scheduled to be held. Justice Adrian Saunders of the CCJ found this to be “disappointing” given government’s defeat in December 2018, and the three-month timeframe set by the Constitution.

The issue of deciding a date for the general election should not be so elongated as it currently is, since compliance with the Constitution is of utmost concern. A date should’ve been fixed long now to keep the Constitution in motion. Covering the 2006 general election, the Electoral Assistance Bureau in their 2007 report stated, “The fixing of election dates will assist in the institutionalization of the electoral process and move Guyana one step closer towards genuine democracy. Arguably, flexible election dates work to the advantage of the incumbent party, with little benefit to opposition parties or the country as a whole. Therefore, the EAB is of the view that there is a strong argument for fixed dates for the elections at the General, Regional and the Local Government levels, especially the potential for a more stable and conducive pre-election political environment.”

Under ideal circumstances, what, then, should happen? Prima-facie, the president calls a date within three months, a timeframe constitutionally set. If a date cannot be set within three months, the president can consult with Parliament and debate for an extended timeframe, which, in turn, if successful, extends the pool of possible dates for the election within that extended timeframe. If the president does not call a date within three months (or within the extended timeframe), constitutional provisions would be subject to uncertainty. Ongoing political strife and an uncompromising attitude among political leaders would be a great disservice to both the Constitution and democracy itself.

Furthermore, if political agents do not comply with the Constitution, thereby “stepping outside” of constitutional borders, then the only democratic agency left to reconcile certainty is GECOM as constitutionally provided for in Article 162 (2). However, GECOM needs a date to work with. Whether or not GECOM would be ready by this date does not matter. What matters is that the Constitution does allow the agency to further negotiations for a more realistic date to hold an election. Even then, as recursive as it may sound, GECOM would need bipartisan support from each side of the political aisle to succeed on setting a viable date.

Nevertheless, even under such a circumstance, GECOM doesn’t set the timeframe or date for an election. GECOM would merely act as a facilitator to allow for further negotiations. Ideally, GECOM should abide by electoral deadlines, not set them. Because of the political impasse, protocols are being subjected to ambiguity. But to remedy the current political predicament, rules must be followed.

Yours faithfully,

Ferlin F. Pedro

Don Singh