My concerns go beyond the arithmetic of elections

Dear Editor,
This is a delayed reply to a letter by Dr. Vishnu Bisram, published on October 24, 2020 and coming to my attention only on October 27, the same date on which I listened to the letter by Mr. Vassan Ramracha. Mr. Bisram’s letter, like the column of Mr. Kissoon, is based on an assumption that I place democracy in Guyana in jeopardy if I, a person long absent, do not join the chorus of those at home and engaged in denouncing election rigging. I draw attention to a letter signed by Moses Bhagwan and me and published around March 10, 2020.

This letter was written when younger Guyanese appealed to us to speak, after violent incidents had occurred along the Demerara-Berbice highway on March 6. That jointly signed letter included a statement that we welcomed the fact that observers were present and would be able to offer judgements on the process not coloured by competition for office. The draft had been about power-sharing after the elections, but I added this paragraph to allow me to sign it. For those who wish to read what is written, this paragraph about observers was a declaration of our position that fairness of the election was a prior condition to any later arrangements.

Speaking for myself, I confirm as Dr. Bisram relates, that like others, I denounced dictatorship of any race and not only election rigging and attempts at rigging but all forms of illegality. It must be understood however, that I did so as a person resident in Guyana with a first-hand, on the spot sense of the actions, statements and body language of the contestants involved. I strongly disagree with anyone who suggests that as a non-resident I have the same vantage point. Moreover, as I have said or hinted in letters, I had reasons to suspect both of the main contenders in the 2020 elections. What I heard coming from Guyana was a repetition of the names of party officials, who are ultimately employees. I have never been in the habit of attacking employees, and if you check, all my attacks in the past have been directed at members of the political directorates, the higher the better.

Moreover, matters from the time of the no-confidence motion and from an early stage of the counting had been referred to the courts whose proceedings I followed with relief at the fact that aggrieved persons could approach them and have their complaints adjudicated. It was the first time in 2020, to my knowledge, that this engagement of the courts in electoral disputes, as they arose, has been so intense. I see no reason now for me, a person in self-exile to repeat or even dispute what the two main contending sides in an election at home were saying or alleging from their vantage points within the process. While at home, I had no such reservations. To jump to the conclusion that it is racial solidarity that keeps me from joining in the condemnations is to me another brand of racial solidarity.

As my critics admit, I denounced and documented the PNC at close range when that was possible. More than that, I moved the High Court in an action first filed in 1976 and then about 1986 or 1987 to declare unconstitutional the habit of charging a Minister or the President with responsibility for registration and general and local elections, thus giving legal cover to political interference and direction. This process was filed against the Attorney General, the Honorable Shahabudeen who can hardly be accused of racial solidarity with the President he advised.

Next, how could I dare to suspect the innocent PPP of any interest in election rigging or manipulation? I listened to a discussion on Global Span 24X7 Live in which Mr. Henry Jeffrey, a former Minister of the PPP/Civic, said very plainly that, in the year 2006 the PPP set up a rigging machine, … and that he had written that in an article in Stabroek News. Mr. Clement Rohee, former General Secretary of the PPP said, on the same programme, “well, the PPP is not full of eunuchs and angels.” My interest in conversation and drama does not allow me to miss the significance of Mr. Rohee’s remarks. He was in fact proclaiming the right of the PPP to rig elections if that was the prevailing practice.

Another factor that warned me against jumping on a bandwagon was this. Each side started a narrative for public consumption but soon dropped the narrative and said nothing about it. The first thing I heard as a non-resident, was that three Russian men had been apprehended in the Marriot Hotel on a suspicious mission and had been deported. The rumour suggests that their mission was to hack computers and create false documents. Since deportation is the act of a Government, the narrative of the three Russians was, to my mind, created by forces aligned with the Government. The other narrative was that the spreadsheet generated within the Elections Commission had been used only in Region Four which the PPP/C had identified as the bone of contention.

As time went on, I heard Mr. Ganesh (Mahipaul) say “if any observer group were to say that in Region Three, Statements of Polls were used for the count, that will not be a true statement.” As time passed, it became clear that the spreadsheet had been used in all regions except Region Nine. The PPP/C quietly dropped the claim that spreadsheet had been used only in Region Four. However, all the news indicates that only in Region Four was the spreadsheet systematically tampered with. So why did I not join in the condemnation of the returning officer of Region Four? Good question! I did not attempt to defend him either. I asked myself quietly the obvious question, that is, whether he acted alone or was obeying higher orders.

In addition to this, there was the whole question of fairness from my point of view. As the discrepancies in the Region Four spreadsheet became more and more revealed, the Coalition increasingly claimed that its opponent had procured invalid votes especially by using the names of persons not present in Guyana on voting day. The parties concerned moved to the courts with applications for judicial review of irregularities or claims of irregularities. My recollection is that the courts found jurisdiction to order that the numbers used in the count should be those on the Statements of Polls. However, the court found that allegations about the casting of invalid votes were matters for an Election Petition and not for them as courts exercising judicial review of the functions of officials.

At some point, the party leaders reached an agreement for CARICOM to intervene and conduct a count of the voting of the general and regional elections. The results of this process were again brought up by a citizen for judicial review which took place and included an application that the validity of the votes cast be examined. The court ruled that the only jurisdiction for a decision, on the validity of votes cast, was that in which the High Court was hearing an Election Petition. Two election petitions were filed within the time limit set by law and their trial is eagerly awaited.

A new President took the oath of office on August 2, as a result of hotly contested court proceedings. As I have argued, all this has been achieved without my participation, showing what ought to be clear to everyone with a little commonsense, that the constitution, the Representation of the Peoples Act, the Guyana Elections Commission, the Courts, and the Political Parties have overcome an impasse and that all parties must now await the hearing and outcome of the elections petition. It should be noted, in fairness, that at no time have I written or said anything in support of the rigging of elections including the most recent. My concerns however, go beyond the arithmetic of elections and have always been more strongly rooted in the public morality, legality and the political culture prevailing.

At this point, a number of electoral officials stand accused of executing what came to light in Region 4 and are likely to face trial soon. I have no interest in joining the cowardly clamour against petty officials and subordinates. I shall await their days in court where they are presumed innocent as they stand trial. My main interest, however, is in the elections petition, the evidence that the petitioner will reveal and the way the lawyers and then the court evaluate and agree or disagree on the weight of this evidence. That will be the proper time for me as a concerned observer from a distance to make comments that I consider fair and helpful. Because of the length of this explanation, I am leaving my defense against Dr. Bisram’s charge of murder of the trees for another letter.

Yours sincerely,
Eusi Kwayana