Dear Editor in Chief,
As, our beloved nation continues along the democratic path, I continue to be particularly intrigued by certain questions about the conduct of international and local observers and allied bodies, here, in Guyana, for our 2020 General and Regional Elections.
Focusing more precisely on unfolding political activities, events and incidents, over the last few weeks, associated with the electoral process, two important questions continue to occupy my mind: (i) do international and local observer missions steady and improve the quality of democracy by strengthening elections in developing countries such as ours? (ii) do observers assess elections accurately and unbiasedly?
The more I think about it, in the context of our past and extant political circumstances. And, the more I consider slippages in democratic stocks in the international community, notwithstanding the significance and widespread use of elections observer missions, the answer to that question seems to be that no one knows for sure. Those who say yes, usually do not bring much evidence to support their claim and when they do, no one knows for sure if and how much did elections observer missions contribute to the particular results, which they tender as evidence, in countries around the world. Sure, some will point to specific cases in different parts where it can be argued that observers reduce the capacity of political actors to subvert the democratic process, manipulate numbers, commit electoral fraud, and even strengthen established democratic institutions. But again, these are often unproven because the work, conduct, approaches and findings of such organisations, missions and agents are not subject to thorough examination by those stakeholders involved. And even if those contributions are examined, one would have to take into account the political and other contexts in which those missions operated in those countries so identified for political and electoral success from the work of such missions. Context is everything. Still, others would and do argue that observers, by their mere presence, enhance the electoral process. Perhaps. But it could also be said the very presence of international and local observers can affect the outcome of elections in very undesirable ways. So, there are assertions on both sides for observer missions lending support to promote democracy by pushing for good elections. Nevertheless, given the weight of their reports and their leverage to facilitate praise or condemnation of elections in the international community, it is important that authorities design a methodology to measure the effectiveness of their contributions to the electoral process.
However, I would like to suggest two reasons why no one can be sure about the effectiveness of such observer missions:
First, the activities of observers and their missions receive little scrutiny. I have never seen any report in Guyana that critically reviewed and analysed the work of elections observer and monitoring missions in previous elections. I have seen recommendations but not analytic or critical reviews on their operations, here in the past.
In fact, few stakeholders and actors even bother to enquire about their credentials and qualifications for the task they undertake – observe and monitor elections in countries,
sometimes, beyond their own, with different cultures. It is assumed that they are happy to help to promote democracy. Yet, by the very action of interposing themselves in the domestic electoral process, such monitoring organisations and agents bring to the fore questions, not a few, about their conduct and effects on the elections as well as the intentions of those, who sponsor them. In many cases, international observers seek to project themselves as guardians of democracy and promote what they think should be the standards and mechanisms for elections. But these might be inconsistent with what is legally obtained in particular countries, where they were accredited to observe. But whilst they are watching us who is watching and monitoring them? It was the Roman poet Juvenal, who asked in one of his Satires, Quis custodiet Ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians?).
Second, it must be noted that elections are not just about polling activity. Elections begin long before nomination day and polling day. There are a number of activities involved in the process including: extensive political campaigns and intense campaigning, legislative and allied frameworks, training of electoral staff, drafting, agreeing and singing of various codes of conduct, logistical and administrative arrangement and priming of political candidates by the media. All the aforementioned activities facilitate public views and perceptions about the form and substance of the process to the point where it activates the will of the people to take particular actions consistent with perceptions created by those activities. By the time foreign and local observers are accredited and become involved, the process is well on its way. So, in many cases, the point at which observers begin to do their work is not where it actually started. Therefore, they begin from a position of limitation/limited knowledge of the general and specific contexts in which the elections are held. Add to that their likely inability to understand the nuances of local political and other cultures – cultures of local political parties, and other non-governmental and non-state actors in our society – and the picture of foreign observers operating in an almost unknown environment becomes clearer. And yet the domestic situation remains dynamic – it is constantly changing. This is exactly why observers should not seek to participate in the process beyond observing; they should observe, report and recommend.
In the case of local observers, they flow out of local communities and the domestic political context, and personal, group, community and organisational experiences. Therefore, local observers do not come to the elections as blank slates; they have views about who and how the country should be govern. Naturally, these views do influence their approach to observing and reporting on the process. Understanding this, society has established appropriate laws, systems and protocols, to assist those involved to be objective in their approach. Outside of these laws and systems it is neigh impossible for local observers, in fact, anyone, to observe elections fairly and impartially. Hence, the reason why it is important that observers, international and local, faithfully adhere to the rules and protocols put in place, by the law and the competent authorities, to prevent cries of biases, discrimination and to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Then the actual task of observing is very complex. Once it is done correctly, observers will have time for nothing else. Many observers have to grapple with many challenges, across the political spectrum, with limited resources. This is difficult by itself because, in many cases, practical and workable solutions are hard to come by, and, even when solutions are recommended by observers, they must be accepted, by parties involved. Even then, there is the question of resources to implement such solutions/recommendations and, of course, the question of follow up on the part of those observers recommending those solutions.
Therefore, in the absence of a set of clear indicators by which the conduct and effectiveness of observer missions and agents, local and international, can be measured, no one will know for sure how much they truly contribute to the good promotion of democracy and how they strengthen the electoral process in Guyana.
Might I respectfully suggest to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and others involved to do a comprehensive national study of the work, conduct and benefits of observers at Guyana’s elections for 2020. Perhaps, such a review could serve as a guide to drafting an enforceable code of conduct for observers of our electoral process going forward. Regardless of the national political and other circumstances let us never forget that Guyana is a sovereign state and that we, all of us, have the right and responsibility to secure the integrity of our nation. Can we do it? Yes, we can!
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_03_13_2020