Tag: Elections

Posted on

Was Whittaker articulating government policy?

On March 7, 2014, the Stabroek News carried an article in which Mr Norman Whittaker, Minister in the Ministry of Local Government is reported as asserting that the “vast majority of the populace is not prepared for the holding of local government polls by August 1st” and that “to go ahead would result in the waste of a lot of money.”

Even by the standards of inanity now associated with the “vast majority” of the PPP/C and government spokespersons, Mr Whittaker’s statement is outstanding for its disconnect with the Constitution of Guyana and the laws relating to local government elections. But it may be more than simple ignorance: it shows the little or no regard which PPP/C ministers have for democracy and the drift to autocracy which Guyana has suffered since democracy returned to it in 1992 and the last local government elections were held in 1994.

Even if Mr Whittaker had read only up to Article 12 of the constitution he would be aware that “local government by freely elected representatives of the people is an integral part of the democratic organisation of the State.” He would also have some passing familiarity with the fact that Chapter VII in its entirety is devoted to Local Democracy, and that Article 71 pronounces that “Local Government is a vital aspect of democracy and shall be organised so as to involve as many people as possible in the task of managing and developing the communities in which they live.”

I do not for a moment believe that Mr Whittaker is unfamiliar with those articles. What I believe is his real problem – apart from the dread that local government elections will be disastrous for the PPP/C – is Article 75 which allows for local democratic organs to be autonomous. Not surprisingly, a party whose article of faith seems based on George Orwell’s Animal Farm, has successfully delayed local government elections for seventeen years, depriving citizens of their constitutional rights.

The citizens of Guyana expect that those responsible for the holding of local government elections will discharge their constitutional and statutory duties. We have a full-time Elections Commission (GECOM) which between 2007 and 2013 inclusive, but excluding election year 2011 benefited from ten billion, four hundred and seventy six million dollars ($10,476 million).

The Local Authorities (Elections) Act gives the power (and the duty) to fix the date for local government elections to the Minister of Local Government. Mr Whittaker has no discretion as to whether citizens want such elections or not and he should be confronted in the National Assembly with his unbelievable nonsense. Moreover, the President or his Governance Advisor must tell the country whether Mr Whittaker was articulating government policy.

The parliamentary opposition and civil society organisations must now provide the leadership to stop this abuse of citizens’ constitutional rights and do everything that is necessary to ensure that local government elections which were due since 1997 are held no later than August 1, 2014.

Posted on

Guyana’s election machinery is not good value for money

Introduction
Last week was not a mixed week for the nation. On one day, the front page of the Stabroek News read: ‘PPP/C addressing voter loss’ and ‘Granger says [APNU] not afraid of new elections,’ both reports arising out of press conferences by their respective parties. These followed comments made by AFC presidential candidate Mr Khemraj Ramjattan that suggested that as a politician he was not unopposed to the existing structure of the electoral body the Guyana Elections Commission (Gecom).

Instead of the PPP/C Central Committee at its first sitting of the 2011 Regional and General Elections deliberating on how its government would pursue its economic and social agenda in the light of the changed landscape in the National Assembly, the report suggests that the high priests of the party were more concerned about the [2011] election strategy, and why it lost votes. Apparently seething from the loss of the Speakership of the National Assembly, it accused the APNU and the Alliance For Change (AFC) of defenestrating tradition from Parliament.

Interestingly, the word ‘defenestration’ is associated with not one, but two wars in the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, in both cases fuelled by persons being thrown out of windows.

Mr Granger is reported to have said that he was not afraid about the prospects of government calling a new election and his group’s confidence in contesting such elections, since he did not believe that the vote-costing attitude of the government had changed for the better in six weeks.

While Mr Granger was reacting to a question from a reporter, I raise my own question whether any of the country’s political parties or civil society has considered the cost of elections in Guyana. This country has not held constitutionally required local government elections since 1994 – eighteen years! – making the claim of democracy less than convincing. And while most Guyanese and the independent observers are satisfied that the results declared by Gecom reflected the votes cast in the November 28 General and Regional Elections, there is almost unanimity that the playing field was not level; that the elections were not fair.

Exploding cost
But that is not the principal concern of today’s column. Rather it is about the cost of elections in Guyana and whether or not the country gets value for the billions it spends not only for the elections but in the intervening years as well. It is about the apparent comfort of the political class in burdening the ordinary citizen with exorbitant VAT and personal income tax which disproportionately hurt the poor and the lower paid employee, while making decisions on spending that completely ignore cost and value for money, and are sometimes designed to feather and further personal, political and commercial interests.

Guyana, with a voting population of less than half a million, has six commissioners, an Executive Chairman as well as a Chief Elections Officer. It also has approximately three hundred full-time staff. By contrast the Electoral Commission of Australia, with a voting population of over thirteen million has three commissioners, a part-time Chairman and one part time non-judicial member. They are supported by a deputy electoral commissioner and an electoral officer for each of the six states and the Northern State. It has about 875 staff operating out of 157 offices.

India, the world’s most populous democracy has seven hundred million voters, many of them not as literate or educated as the average Guyanese voter. Yet the professionally managed and fiercely independent Election Commission of India, with responsibility for the oversight, direction and preparation of the electoral rolls as well as election-related interaction with the Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of the president and vice president delivers efficient and low-cost elections generally seen as free and fair. Local elections for urban and rural bodies are conducted by the various State Election Commissions. That country has a mere three commissioners, one of whom is designated the Chief Election Commissioner and all of whom are subject to term (five years) and age (65) limits, whichever comes first.

And how much is that?
Gecom is constitutionally responsible for the general direction and supervision of registration of voters and the administrative conduct of elections. These should be carried out with a view to ensuring impartiality, fairness and compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and any relevant Act of Parliament. For reasons that go outside of this column – but which include Gecom’s (and the courts, and the Audit Office’s) failure to take action to protect its own independence from the executive – the Commission since 1992 has failed to deliver on its complete mandate. To use the political parties as the excuse why some things are not done is nothing but a cowardly cop out.

Here is a summary of the expenditure by Gecom over the post-2006 election period 2007 to 2011. It shows that over the five year period, Gecom was funded from the public purse to the tune of over nine billion dollars, excluding any request which the Minister of Finance may bring to the National Assembly for any supplementary expenditure. As expected, the cost rose significantly in 2011 but even so it was only about a third of the expenditure for the electoral cycle, with some of the cost in the intervening period being attributable to the new registration exercise when new ID cards were issued.

Figures: G$’000
Source: National Estimates

Using the number of 475,000 eligible voters on the updated list, it has cost this country an astounding $19,000 per voter between 2007 and 2011. I have seen no statistics from anywhere around the world that comes close to this figure, one that clearly suggests caution as we make sounds about another round of elections. What is equally remarkable is that even in a non-election year the cost runs above two thousand dollars per person when the international average cost for elections runs much, much lower. Of course some part of that is understandable with an element of fixed cost for any elections body, regardless of the size of the electorate.

An example of overspending
But let us take a simple example of why the culture of cost control and management is so completely absent. Over the past five years each of the part-time, non-executive commissioners has earned a minimum of twelve million dollars. Compare that with the salary of the lowly teacher, the often maligned nurse or police officer who would have earned a mere two million dollars over the same five years. There seems neither logic nor justice that a part-time, under-employed commissioner often sitting there to carry out the wishes of the party, should earn more than five times the full-time public servant.

This column has been a persistent critic of the Audit Office but even they have expressed concerns over the integrity of the controls in Gecom, including financial management and stores controls and purchases of millions of dollars from untraceable suppliers. We have to expect better management of the billions made available to Gecom and which naturally come out of the same block of funds that inadequately provide for the health, education and other sectors. Think what some of that money can do for the University of Guyana or to ensure that there is an adequate supply of drugs in the regional hospitals and health centres or to enhance security.

Let us look at another table.

Election expenses as a percentage of National Budget

Figures: G$’Mn
Source: National Estimates

What this table tells us is that two out of every one hundred dollars spent in 2011 went towards Gecom for the administration of the elections. And to think that the cost of security is not included, or all the vote-buying and elections-related projects undertaken by the government, or the heavy campaign cost incurred by the parties!

Conclusion
I never feel safe making any claim for Guyana as the best or worst in the world but I can comfortably state that as a percentage of the national budget and on a per capita basis Guyana must have the most expensive election machinery in the world.

Following the elections there was much talk of reforming Gecom, talk that has subsided as APNU’s allegations of improprieties have receded into virtual silence. Something has to be done about our electoral machinery. A global survey published in June 2005 on the Cost of Registration and Elections offers some excellent insights on how we can cut down on the cost and yet deliver better results. Unfortunately Guyana was not included in the survey but one of the contributors was part of the Carter team that had recommended the 3-3-1 model for the 1992 elections.

That arrangement was intended to be temporary. It is time to bring it to an end and to introduce a cost efficient and politically effective model.

Posted on

Bisram got it wrong

Now that some of the elections’ debris seems to be settling, I thought it might be a good time to review Vishnu Bisram’s pre-elections poll findings and compare these with how the electorate actually voted on November 28. In the following Table, I set out the share of the votes by region, as well as and the overall share of the votes which according to Mr Bisram would be in favour of the four parties contesting the elections. The table then compares these with the actual voting as reported by Gecom and highlights the significant differences.

Despite having a margin of error of 6% – high by any polling standard – Mr Bisram got it wrong in seven (3,4,6,7,8,9 and 10) of the ten regions. For good measure, his poll also had the overall result for the APNU off target by 9 percentage points. That is an error rate of 70%! As readers would note from the table, these are by no means small percentages and in six of the seven regions where he was wrong by more than the margin of error, the difference in percentage points was in the double digits. Indeed in those cases, the error ranged from 10% to 27% percentage points.

These huge margins are rare for any credible pollster and may vindicate those who have criticised NACTA and Mr Bisram for less than professional, objective and impartial polling. His last pre-election poll carried only in the Guyana Chronicle not only caused Mr Bisram’s reputation considerable if irreparable damage but quite possibly adversely affected the PPP/C’s electoral success as well. One day before the elections, the Guyana Chronicle converted his poll and its margin of error into a “landslide” for the PPP/C with APNU and the AFC trailing.

Maybe Mr Bisram should take some time out to review his methodology and in future offer to Guyanese polls that are more reliable, objective and useful.

Finally, while Mr Bisram got it wrong, the voters got it right. They have shown that no one party has a lock on the electorate and for the first time have given the country shared governance between two major arms of the state. I am more than just hopeful that our politicians will rise to the occasion and we will have balanced growth and development over the next five years.

Posted on

Whatever the result of the elections they will not have been fair

Parliament was prorogued in late September, meaning that we now have no parliament and the passage of new laws including those for incurring of new debts must await the next parliament. However, to ensure that the wheels of government do not grind to a halt, the constitution provides for the executive, including the president and the cabinet, to remain in office until a new government is installed. The government meanwhile assumes a holding mode, sometimes loosely described as a lame duck government.

Our constitution does not specify, or indeed restrict, the powers of the government during this holding period. That does not mean the government can do as it pleases. Indeed what it should do is to follow convention and good practice and limit its actions, decisions and expenditure to what the National Assembly approved before prorogation. Accordingly, the decisions they should make and action taken should be restricted to routine, operational matters.

It would not be appropriate for example for the government to enter into a new international treaty or to make a decision on matters that would require parliamentary approval, whether in the form of authorisation or the provision of finance. I understand that the constitutions of some countries limit the actions such holding governments can take, thus making it unconstitutional for them to do the kinds of things that have become routine under the increasingly lawless PPP/C.

The thinly disguised Cabinet Outreach, outboard engines and fertilizer of 2006 are modest compared with the multibillion agreements we have been hearing about since the announcement of elections. A few days ago we learnt from Jamaica that Jagdeo has signed a secret deal with the Chinese for an investment of $27 billion on the Timehri Airport, and from the local press that he is borrowing $4 billion from India for a specialty hospital, and is committing several billion dollars for an overpriced Marriott Hotel.

We have become so accustomed to this lawlessness that we simply dismiss Mr Jagdeo’s actions as further cases of his routine violations of the constitution, some of which concern the protection afforded by the constitution. These include the appointment of an Ombudsman, the Public Procurement Commission and the integrity of the Consolidated Fund and the Contingencies Fund.

There are two important consequences to these actions: whether it is proper for the Jagdeo administration to tie the hands of the successor government; and the impact of such actions on the elections. The first touches on the constitutional issue of whether a successor government (PPP/C, APNU or AFC) should consider itself bound by these reckless decisions. Unfortunately Mr Donald Ramotar appears to be a party to most of the recent excesses and would seem to be allowing himself little or no room to revisit any of them. It would seem from their pronouncements that the other major parties are committed to revisiting and quite probably rescinding a number of the recent deals, with the Amaila Project heading the list. That could put Guyana on a collision course with investors and tarnish the country’s reputation as an investment destination.

On the issue of the fairness of the elections, I think it would be hard for anyone to conclude that house lots to communities, subventions for Veterans Homes, salary increases to public servants and the disciplined services, the signing of new contracts with major tax concessions and or state borrowings, the payment of discretionary sums from the ruling party office and the opening of miscellaneous facilities by the President and his ministers are not intended to and will not influence the vote. That means the elections – whatever the result – will not be free and fair and one hopes that the Elections Observer Missions are taking note.

Over the last fourteen years I have tried to convince GECOM and the political parties to have some form of campaign finance rules. Mrs Sheila Holder actually tabled a motion in the National Assembly on this. The PPP/C simply stalled. As a result we have neither campaign rules nor restrictions on the use of state resources for party political purposes.

It is a gift for a president who has no sense of constitutional convention or propriety, has no respect for the rule of law, and indulges himself with the belief that he is all powerful.

Posted on

Region 9 flood relief was distributed through PPP/C party office

‘Business Page’ in this past Sunday Stabroek noted how the government has undermined the regional administrations and the local democratic organs across the country. For more than ten years, it has failed to pass the necessary laws and to establish the Local Government Commission required by the Constitution of Guyana to allow for operational and financial autonomy of those bodies. In that column I reminded readers that Article 12 of the Constitution states that “Local government by freely elected representatives of the people is an integral part of the democratic organisation of the State.” Instead of democracy, the PPP/C has restored party paramountcy in its vilest form.

One day after the column appeared I learn through the online news medium Demerara Waves that during the PPP/C’s electioneering campaign in Region 9 this weekend, that party’s regional headquarters was the location from which hundreds of persons were paid $20,000 in cash. The ostensible purpose of the payment was “flood relief.”

It is entirely irrelevant whether the recipients were told that the money came from the public Treasury and not the PPP/C. Each of the ten administrative regions has its own office, staff and transportation facilities. It is wrong, and egregiously so, that public funds are disbursed from any party office. I would like to think – though with this dishonest government and its political arm the equally dishonest PPP/C, no one can be sure – that following the flood, a proper, auditable system was used to identify eligible persons for “flood relief.”

Yet, this government, which for years had robbed the Amerindians of their entitlements under the Amerindian Act 2006, heartlessly made the flood victims wait for five months until the PPP/C elections entourage rolled into town to make the “flood relief” payment at their party’s office. I would not be surprised if the payment was deceptively an inducement to the poor Amerindians to attend the PPP/C rally and had little to do with “flood relief.” It is after all, how the party has commoditised the Amerindians of this country, particularly since 1992. It is about paramountcy of the party which Guyanese had deluded themselves had died in 1992. In fact paramountcy has matured into a semi-criminal enterprise.

This is just the latest case of the government using the prorogation of the National Assembly as a cover to continue misusing, mismanaging and misappropriating public moneys in a crude and shameless vote-buying national exercise. Even as the non-government parties campaign to unseat the PPP/C, they should remain alert to and oppose all the abuses which are coming to light.

As a member of civil society and of the Committee for Human Rights and Free and Fair Elections, I hope that Gecom, the Electoral Assistance Bureau and all those who will pronounce on the November 28 national and regional elections are taking note of these malpractices. The stage is being set for massively unfair elections.