Dear Editor,

AS the world watches, waits and hopes to see if Guyana, and by extension the government which has won the elections, will cower, buckle and give up its victory to satisfy the interests of the “international community” comprising only of the ABCE countries, of allowing the defeated PPP/C to become the illegitimate government under the pretext of preservation of democracy and respect for the will of the people; irony at its best!

The people have spoken, but their will is being denied by too much shenanigans that’s preventing GECOM from completing its work.

The government of Guyana, comprising of a six-party coalition administration led by arguably the best President of Guyana in the 21st Century, stands resolute in its free and fair victory at the polls. Mr. Editor, my pontificating must be put in context to give effect to my reasoning.

President David Granger has done what no other President in this country or Prime Minister in the region was able to do. He has been able to lead a coalition of six political parties with different ideologies, philosophies, identities and leadership styles. Parties that were once bitter rivals on the political landscape that came together for the benefit of Guyana formed and sustained a government that has begun to rescue and restore this nation which was on the brink of destruction.

Guyana, before 2015, was considered a narco-state by the United  States government, where extra-judicial killings were constant, freedom of the press was consistently under threat, outspoken opposition and political activists, including a former Minister of the Government and his family members, were beaten, jailed and assassinated.
Innocent protesters, true defenders of democracy, were beaten, jailed and shot dead.  Democracy was on the verge of collapse, just like the country’s economy. The former American Ambassador Brent Hardt, God bless his soul, received a first- class cuss-out, or to put it mildly “a feral blast” from a former Minister of the PPP/C administration “Satire Girl” for suggesting to the then government that they allow democracy to be reinstated with the holding of constitutionally-due local government elections, which they ignored until the new government came and restored local democracy.

The government of the day had no respect for workers nor their unions; that was the Guyana David Granger and his ‘Coalition Government’ inherited, with a task to fix it, and that they did.

The Granger Administration embarked on the restoration of Law and Order. The government collaborated in partnership with the Americans and established a DEA office that was refused by the then PPP/C Administration which resulted in the drugs and piracy situation coming under control, extra-judicial killings ceasing, and freedom and respect for the press being restored. Real respect for the Separation of Power was re-established with the executive, the legislative and judiciary. The real legal economy began to grow, to the point where old-age pension was increased significantly, as well as all public servants salaries. Infrastructural works improved and extended to the hinterland communities, and a more serious approach was given to the nation’s education sector, etc.

Mr. Editor, coupled with all of the Opposition challenges and sabotaging of the Government’s efforts, a renewed sense of national pride and nationhood resonated with our people, both here at home and in the diaspora; they were now a proud people.
Guyana was on the rise, and with the announcement of the ExxonMobil Liza discovery, everything was moving upwards in the right direction.

But who would have thought our assumed ‘Big Brother’ and their friends would, from all appearances, conspire with the Opposition and attempt to bully a democratically-elected Government out of office?

Mr. Editor, it was the famous Henry Alfred Kissinger, an American politician, diplomat, and geopolitical consultant who served as United States Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under the Presidential administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, who posits these iconic words that holds real truth to our present political situation: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

Mr. Editor, I say this unashamedly and resolutely as a proud Guyanese, that this is an “independent” Cooperative Republic of Guyana, and we as Guyanese must put our interests above all other foreign interest. Our people must come first; we are not a colony. And during those horrific times, we have overpaid with our blood, sweat and tears, when we were slaves in their colony. And I daresay, reparations are still due to us by our former inhumane colonisers.

Additionally, Mr. Editor, it must be made known, unequivocally, that we are not subjects to imperialist ambitions to be dominated and exploited by foreign nations of our natural resources due to their military might and threats of economic embargoes and sanctions via tweets or other forms of communication. We are a full-fledged functioning democracy, where we live peacefully and abide by “our” Constitution and Laws, and have the utmost respect for our Judiciary. All of which are sacrosanct principles of modern democratic societies.

Mr. Editor, it is therefore incumbent upon all conscious and right-thinking Guyanese to emphatically reject the camouflage and cunning invasion and intrusion of our homeland by the so-called “international community”, comprising mostly of western powers that threaten our sovereignty of nationhood and democratic processes. The creeping interest into our internal affairs as an independent State by foreign interests must not only be investigated, but must also be emphatically rejected and refused by all, for it has the potential to set a dangerous precedence by those with interests that don’t coincide with ours.

Mr. Editor, the outright brazen intrusion into our affairs as an independent State by the ABCE representatives has blatantly breached accepted international diplomatic relations. It is without question, Mr. Editor, that Guyana or any other country’s representatives/ambassadors would not and will not ever be allowed to act and function in the unscrupulous manner in which those foreign countries have, moreover in their elections processes.

Mr. Editor, could you abuse your mind to envisage our ambassador to Canada, the United States, Great Britain or the EU manoeuvering like their counterparts here in their country’s election, or in the US’s upcoming elections in November 2020, where the ‘tweeting’ senators will be contesting? Would our ambassadors even be offered observer status, or are they too “small and poor” to be engaged in the affairs of the high and mighty, all-powerful rulers of the universe?

Mr. Editor, as long as the concept of sovereignty exists as prerogatives of independent nations and people are, as a right of all people, we will not accept the exclusion of our nation and its people; that right our independence promises. Mr. Editor, we may not have been fortunate, as a nation, to benefit from and amass unimaginable wealth for the most heinous crimes to humanity, slavery or the genocide of thousands of Indigenous people, nor have we benefited from the mass exploitation of natural resources of foreign lands once colonized, or from the ravages and spoils of wars that brought no peace.

But let it be known that we are a peaceful people, who have been struggling in our struggle for far too long; we are an intelligent people, who are quite capable of managing our own affairs as civilised people who adhere to “our” laws of “our” independent country.

We deserve, as a people, to play a defining and pivotal role in the managing of our nation’s resources, and ensuring that our Guyanese people benefit handsomely from its patrimony. We do welcome partners, and encourage partnerships with friendly States, because we live in an interconnected world that needs each other to coexist. Mr. Editor, we as a God-blessed country require of the “international community”, including the entire African continent, South America, Asia, Central and Latin America, CARICOM the Islamic States, China, Japan, Russia and all other countries of this interconnected world to respect all other independent and sovereign States as they require for themselves.

Regards,
Jermaine Figueira

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_01_04_2020

Dear Editor,
The deep socio-political and ethnic divide that has reached the surface once again in Guyana is the making of a handful of politicians who continue use racism and fear to galvanise their main support bases. Make no mistake about it, the root cause of racism in Post-Independent Guyana is not the colonial legacy of racism in Guyana, it is a tactic used by several Guyanese politicians seeking political power and the socioeconomic privileges that political power in Guyana has come to symbolize.

It is no longer about service to the people; the current political system is an exclusionary system used by these very politicians to enrich themselves, strategic allies in the private sector, inter alia, at the expense of working-class Guyanese, the vast majority of the electorate whom said colonial-minded politicians depend on for votes. Read another way, we working-class Guyanese support the very system and people we complain about daily and say need to change to be more inclusive, responsive to the public and less violent. Still yet, read another way, we foolishly create and recreate the main political problems (removing the Westminster model, elected constituency-based Parliamentarians instead of selecting them from a list, reform of our Constitution to enshrine more inclusive governance at the Cabinet level in particular, removal of the executive empowers of the Presidency etc.) we complain about every five years in-between electoral cycles.

We know that in Guyana, functional literacy, domestic violence, violence against women, bullyism and a largely unskilled workforce are all pressing matters that require urgent strategic and long-term programming. But we Guyanese invest more time in supporting the programmes of political parties more than we invest time and resources supportive of less violent and racist society, improved road safety and compliance with traffic laws, depletion of the very natural resources (gold, forest/trees etc.) we depend on for sustenance and income. Guyanese, fix your priorities and you will fix the country!

Regards,
R. Small

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_01_04_2020

Dear Editor,
AS the world pivots on a pandemic that has befuddled sophisticated medical communities worldwide, rendered governments including the US, the UK, Canada, and the fractured European Union woefully underprepared, and ground much of the world to a halt, Guyana’s health is further compromised not by its government response to the Coronavirus but by a seemingly malignant flaw in its race-based DNA. And in a morbid juxtaposition, while the world count their dead from the lethal virus, Guyana is poised to yet recount the votes cast in a free and fair election held in the South American republic almost a month ago.

Curiously though as the aforementioned nations struggle to get some semblance of control of the deadly Covid 19 virus which has impacted even personnel of the US Congress and Senate, as well as the British royal family and its Prime Minister, while playing havoc with their economies, it has not proven to be enough of a diversion as to prevent their home governments from focusing on the unresolved electoral machinations of this tiny newly oil-rich nation. Clearly in the lingo of nowadays occasioned by the coronavirus of -‘social distancing’ does not apply to their political contact, indeed interference in the affairs of this sovereign nation. Leading the charge for the United States is Asst. Secretary of State at the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Michael Kozak, who in a show of imperial arrogance summoned Guyana Ambassador to Washington Riyad Insanally to the State Department to warn against what in their view would be illegal installation of a government in Guyana, should they not accept GECOM’s official tally.

Meanwhile speaking for Canada, Asst. Deputy Minister of Americas at Global Affairs Michael Grant placing another thumb on the scale of justice, firmly stated that “We’re monitoring closely the legal proceedings related to Guyana’s elections. We believe a recount of ballots is necessary to ensure every vote is counted.” Not surprisingly providing the underpinning for the opposition conspiracy theory PPP leader Bharat Jagdeo firmly stated that “court ruling or no court ruling the results are fraudulent”.

For good measure, Stabroek News, bereft of any semblance of balance in their coverage of the electoral process and all issues political, in a recent editorial stated, ‘there is clearly a conspiracy at GECOM to hand the election to the incumbent APNU/AFC without an accurate count of the largest voting district – Demerara/Mahaica – region 4.”

Growing up in Guyana my father, Cleveland Wycliffe Hamilton, in arbitrating disputes among his children would often suggest that ‘every story has 3 sides – my side, your side, and the truth’. In the case now pending on the basis of my Dad’s theory, GECOM holds the true story of Region 4, as well as the rest of the country.
As we await the final decision fully one month after the election another of my late father’s theory on the pace of progress in Guyana as he chronicled the life and times of his beloved homeland with humor and ardent wit wrote that ‘Guyana has 3 speeds – Slow, dead slow, and turnback.’

As our beloved nation takes its next deliberate step, the hope is that it does not take its marching orders from those who seek to ignore the nation’s sovereignty and the constitution, bearing in mind that Guyana is merely a Republic …not a banana republic. And shame on those including eminent jurists, inveterate diplomats, military mavens, and others who suggest that Guyana, a nation of laws, is teetering on the brink of failed statehood.

Regards,
Cosmo Hamilton

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_01_04_2020

…Justice Holder says court has no jurisdiction to hear case

By Svetlana Marshall

HIGH Court Judge Franklin Holder on Tuesday ruled that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear an application filed by Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo and Reeaz Holladar to set aside the second declaration made by Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo.
In his declaration on March 13, Mingo announced that the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) secured 136, 057 votes in District 4 (Demerara-Mahaica) in the General Elections, while the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) secured 77, 231 votes. Jagdeo and Holladar, in their application, contended that, based on Statements of Poll (SOPs) in their possession, the declaration made by the Region 4 Returning Officer was flawed. However, Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield, one of the respondents in the matter, challenged the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the application.

Justice Holder, in handing down his decision, said the core issues raised in the application touch on matters provided for in Article 163 (1) of the Constitution, and as such, ought to be dealt with by way of an Elections Petition pursuant to Section 3 of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.

According to Article 163 (1) (b) (i), the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine any question on whether, “either generally or in any particular place, an election has been lawfully conducted or the result thereof has been, or may have been, affected by any unlawful act or omission.”

However, Justice Holder noted that Judicial Review could occur in restrictive matters, as in the case of Reeaz Holladar v the Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, in which the High Court established jurisdiction, and subsequently ruled, on March 11, that the Returning Officer had failed to comply with Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the People Act when he tabulated the votes for his Electoral District.

IN NON-COMPLIANCE
In the lead-up to his first declaration, on March 5, Mingo had failed to tabulate the SOPs in the presence of persons entitled to be there, and as such was found to be in non-compliance with Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act.

In turning his attention to the case brought by Jagdeo and Holladar, Justice Holder said that based on documents tendered before the Court, Mingo subsequently took the necessary steps to comply with the ruling of the Court, and more importantly Section 84.

He said that as of Tuesday, March 31, 2020, there was no evidence before the Court stating that the Region Four Returning Officer breached the High Court Order handed down by Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire.

As such, he maintained that the challenge to the validity of the declaration made by Mingo on March 13 is a matter for an Elections Petition. On those grounds, he ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case, and that the challenge must be brought by way of an Elections Petition after the declaration of the results by GECOM.

Outside of the High Court, Senior Counsel Neil Boston, the attorney representing Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield told reporters that he was satisfied with the decision of the High Court. “It is an issue for an Elections Petition, because there is a dispute as to whether Jagdeo’s figure of 114,000-plus for APNU, and 80,000-plus for PPP conflicts with that of Mingo’s 136,057 [for APNU+AFC], and that could only be resolved by an Elections Court when an Elections Petition is filed,” Boston said.

He said that based on Mingo’s declaration, which was the last of 10 declarations made, the APNU+AFC has won the General Elections. However, given the ruling of the Full Court earlier that day that the Court has no jurisdiction at this stage to set aside a decision of the Elections Commission to facilitate a recount, Boston said GECOM will now have to determine whether it will declare the results of the Elections, based on the report submitted by the Chief Elections Officer, or facilitate the National Recount of all the votes cast at the March 2, 2020 Elections, as agreed by President Granger and the Leader of the Opposition.

‘A VERY STRANGE DECISION’
Jagdeo and Holladar’s attorney, Anil Nandlall, expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling. “It is a very strange decision because, first of all, Justice Holder, in an identical Judicial Review proceedings, gave himself jurisdiction and granted three injunctions; that is what he did in the Ulita Moore matter, and suddenly he lost jurisdiction, so that part I don’t understand,” Nandlall told reporters.

Nandlall said his client has not yet decided whether he will appeal the case. “We don’t need to if the recount will be done in accordance with the Chairperson [of GECOM]’s commitment… We don’t want to keep the matter in the court, when the solution to this issue lies outside of the court,” he said.

It is likely that the Elections Commission will meet today to determine the way forward.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_01_04_2020

…rules that Court has no jurisdiction to hear Ulita Moore’s Case

By Svetlana Marshall
OVERRULING a decision by High Court Judge Franklin Holder, the Full Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case brought by Ulita Moore challenging the decision of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to facilitate a National Recount of all the votes cast at the March 2 Elections on the grounds that the issues raised could only be dealt with by way of an Elections Petition.
Last Friday (March 27), Justice Holder ruled that the High Court had jurisdiction to review the actions of GECOM in light of allegations that it may have acted outside of its constitutional powers when it opted to facilitate a national recount under the supervision of a high-level team from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) based on an agreement brokered by President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo. Justice Holder’s decision was challenged by Jagdeo, and an appeal was made to the Full Court.
When the Full Court, which comprised of Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire and Justice Nareshwar Harnanan, handed down its decision on Tuesday (March 31), it ruled that any challenge to decisions made by the Elections Commission could only be done by way of an Elections Petition, and not Judicial Review, as provided for in the Constitution and Electoral Laws.

As such, the order issued by Justice Holder establishing jurisdiction to hear the case of Ulita Moore v The Guyana Elections Commission, the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission and the Chief Elections Officer and others was vacated.

“As a further consequence, for the avoidance of doubt, the interim injunctions granted by Justice Holder would then stand discharged. It follows that the substantive Fixed Date Application would stand dismissed on the ground that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it,” the Chief Justice further ruled.

Injunction
Moore had secured four interim injunctions from Justice Holder; chief among them was an interim order restraining the Elections Commission from setting aside, varying or substituting the declarations of the Returning Officers of the 10 Electoral Districts with any other document until the hearing and determination of the judicial review application. The interim injunction had also tied the hands of the Chief Elections Officer from facilitating a recount. However, with the orders being vacated and the substantive application dismissed, it is now up to GECOM to decide whether it will declare the results of the March 2 General and Regional Elections or facilitate a national recount.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

In arriving at the decision, the Full Court considered Articles 162 and 163 (1) of the Constitution, Sections 22 and 23 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act of 2000, Section 140 of the Representation of the People Act and Section 3 of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act.

The Chief Justice, in offering the Full Court’s analysis, said the evidence placed before the Court indicates that all is not well with the administration of the elections. Based on the evidence, provided through affidavits, difficulties arose during and after the declarations of the results by the Returning Officer, as well as with the applications for and refusal of applications for recounts. It was noted that approximately one month after the conduct of General and Regional Elections were held, the official results remain unknown.
“It is within this context, one would expect GECOM to step in and take charge of the situation. Article 162 (1) (b)…gives wide powers to GECOM to ensure an impartial and fair elections process. Section 22 of Act No. 15 of 2000 merely supplements or provides one of many mechanisms for ensuring that there is compliance with Article 162 in this regard,” Justice George-Wiltshire reasoned.

The Chief Justice said it is the view of the Full Court that Section 22 of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act is one of the provisions that operationalizes the powers and functions of GECOM as mandated in Article 162. Importantly, she said, Section 22 permits GECOM to address any difficulty encountered during the execution of its mandate.

Section 22 states: “If any difficulty arises in connection with the application of this Act, the Representation of the People Act or the National Registration Act or any relevant subsidiary legislation, the Commission shall, by order, make any provision, including the amendment of the said legislation, that appears to the Commission to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty; and any such order may modify any of the said legislation in respect of any particular matter or occasion so far as may appear to the Commission to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty.”

GECOM chair’s commitment
Further to that, the Full Count took into account the statement of the Chair of GECOM, Justice (Ret’d) Claudette Singh, in which it was indicated that there was an attempt to address the difficulties which arose during the electoral process. In her statement, the GECOM Chair gave an undertaking to facilitate a recount. Her decision, she said, was bolstered by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) initiative – in which it was agreed by President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo for a high-level CARICOM team to oversee a national recount of all the votes cast at the March 2 Elections.
“It was clear from this statement that this CARICOM initiative, for recount, was a mechanism for a recount over which GECOM had controlled,” the Chief Justice said.
Turning her attention to the Affidavit tendered by the Chief Elections Officer (CEO) Keith Lowenfield, Justice George-Wiltshire said the CEO, in that document, indicated that he submitted his report on the elections to the Chair of GECOM, while drawing attention to the fact that the Commission has not met to deliberate on the report.

“Be that as it may, it cannot be within the jurisdiction of the High Court to prevent GECOM from meeting to discuss the report and whatever else may be deemed to be relevant to ensure the Article 162 provision for an impartial and fair conduct of elections is carried out. Nor can the Court direct GECOM to convene a meeting for a specific purpose as claimed in the relief sought. To do so, would be to overreach or to trespass on the functions of the Commission pursuant to Article 162…” Justice George-Wiltshire made clear.

In further addressing the issue of whether the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the Elections Commission as sought by Moore in her application, the Chief Justice pointed to the fact that Section 140 (1) of the Representation of the People Act precludes the Court from intervening in the decision making of GECOM except by way of an Elections Petition. In support of the Full Court’s decision, she further referenced to Section 140 (2). That subsection states: “No evidence of any deliberations of the Elections Commission or communications between members of the Commission regarding its business shall be admissible in any court.” As such, she said any meeting of GECOM, as a whole, or deliberations among the Commissioners fall within the parameter of Section 140.

It was made known that the case brought by Moore differs from the case of Reeaz Holladar v the Returning Officer, Clairmont Mingo and others, in which, the High Court, on March 11, established jurisdiction to adjudicate over that matter. Justice George-Wiltshire explained that apart from the factual matrix being different, there were no provisions, such as Section 140, that applied to the statutory function of the Returning Officer. In that case brought by Holladar, the High Court found that there was substantial non-compliance with Section 84 (1) of the Representation of the People Act when Mingo tabulated the Statements of Poll for the votes cast in District 4. Additionally, she said it was not an issue that was based on the results of the elections but rather compliance with Section 84.

In his judgment, Justice Holder had found that Section 140 of the Representation of the People Act does not ouster the jurisdiction of the Court, in its ordinary jurisdiction, for Judicial Review where GECOM intends to do or alleged to have done something for which it has no jurisdiction. However, the Full Court ruled that Justice Holder erred in his analysis.
“We are of the view that Justice Holder would have erred when he failed to fully take into consideration and or apply the distinction between complete ouster clauses… and partial ouster clauses,” the Chief Justice said as she maintained the Full Court’s position that Section 140 ousters the Court’s jurisdiction to treat with the issues raised in Moore’s application at this stage. It was explained that the Section 140 (1) of the Representation of the People Act allocates jurisdiction of the High Court, however, by a special procedure – that is, by an Elections Petition, which ought to be brought within 28 days of the official declarations of the Elections results by GECOM.

“The jurisdiction of the High Court is therefore not ouster at all but Section 140 (1) merely requires the particular issue to be dealt with by a particular procedure; that is to say, by Elections Petition,” the Chief Justice further explained.

Moore in her application had contended that the Chair of GECOM and the Elections Commission, as a whole, had failed to execute their functions when they declined to declare the results of the Elections, though provided with the report by the Chief Elections Officer, and had opted for a recount. The Chief Justice iterated that the issues raised in Moore’s application are covered in Article 163 of the Constitution, and as such, could only be questioned in an Elections Petition.

“In this context, whether GECOM has performed its functions at all would speak to both acts and omissions, whether or not validly done, and would be subject to review by an Elections Petition. In this regard, any decision or functions of GECOM, in determining a result of an election would fall under Article 163 (1) (b) (i) (ii) and Rule 3, which speaks not only to an inquiry into acts of commission but also omissions,” the Chief Justice ruled.
In response to the ruling, Attorney-at-Law Mayo Robertson, one of the attorneys representing Moore, requested leave from the Court to file an appeal at the level of the Court of Appeal but that too was refused by the Full Court.

“In relation to the application for leave to appeal, the court is unanimous in refusing this application on the basis that this court, whilst acknowledging this is a serious issue by the parties, finds there is no real prospect of success of an appeal,” Justice Harnanan said as he, on behalf of the Full Court, also refused the application for a stay.

Robertson appeared in association with Grenadian Queens Counsel, Dr. Francis Alexis, and Attorneys-at-Law John Jeremie S.C., Keith Scotland out of Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana’s Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde.

Jagdeo was represented by Trinidad’s Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes and Attorneys-at-Law Anil Nandlall and Davindra Kissoon, while the Chair of GECOM was represented by Attorney-at-Law Kim Kyte-Thomas. The Chief Elections Officer was represented by Senior Counsel Neil Boston, while Attorney-at-Law Timothy Jonas appeared on behalf of A New and United Guyana (ANUG), the Liberty and Justice Party (LJP) and The New Movement (TNM) – all added respondents in the matter.

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_01_04_2020

Democracy will Prevail!

Dear Editor, 

FROM its inception, electoral democracy bas al­ways hem based upon the will of the majority. So it has been for centuries and so it will be for eons. Societies in which this system obtains, have always ac­cepted this reality. Today, they constitute what is now regarded as the free world. 

Democracy is the name of the game. The will of the majority is its most quint­essential rule. Those who subscribe to the game are bound by and always bind themselves to that rule. 

In some countries, the political systems have been altered to suit the needs and peculiarities of those societies. As a result, there are occasions when a ma­jority vote does not yield Government. For example, five Presidents of the United States of America were elected and allowed to govern, though not winning the popular vote. However, those are the rules by which they agreed to play. When the results come, they do not and cannot quarrel with those rules. In such an in­stance, it means more people did not vote for the Govern­ment than those who voted for the government. Yet you not once hear about ” , half the country being left behind”. 

Political parties from al I over the world have drawn their core support from par­ticular constituencies that constitute formidable segments of the demography in those societies, be it class, religion, sects, tribe, caste, ethnicity, race, ideology, etc. So, every time one political party wins an election, its constituency wins and the other constituencies that do not win must accept defeat. These are the rules of the gan1e. However, not for one moment, does this mean that a government so elected, must focus only on its own constituency. It must govern for all. Sagacious politicians, who lose, would normally begin to work to win the next elections. These are also the rules of the game. 

What is absolutely pro­hibited is when one party loses, that party fraudulently uses the state apparatus and public funds to project false results, in order not to give up government and worse yet, refuses to give up government, when those fraudulent results attempts are subverted by clamouring to “share the government” with the winner, on the basis that their constituency would be left behind. 

If this is ever allowed to prevail, then it will be the end of modern electoral democracy as we know it. If President Donald Trump loses the next election, he will refuse to give up power and will demand that the Democrats share government with him because if not, the Republicans, con­stituting half of the popu­lation of the United States, would be “left behind”. Just imagine for one moment this horrendous occurrence replicating itself across the globe. It will sound the death knell of democracy and the birth and glory of tyranny. 

This is the tragic narrative of those who have lost the 2nd March 2020 elections in Guyana. The free world wilI never coun­tenance it. The PPP lost the 2015 elections by just over 4,000 votes. The AP­NU+AFC lost the 2020 elections by over 15,000 votes, by nearly four times more votes than the PPP lost by in 2015. The PPP, in the traditions of democ­racy, gave up government. The PPP, from its birth, have always commanded the electoral support of over 50% of the population. That reality has not changed. To those who speak about Indian domination, I say that, currently, the Indians constitute a mere 39% of the population and the Africans extremely close behind. Therefore, it is not about Indians and Africans. It is about leadership, policies and programmes. Those are the foundation pillars Dr. Cheddi Jagan built and left in the PPP. Nothing stops the other Apolitical parties from emulating the Father of the Nation. 

Their narratives will never succeed.  The quicker they understand that, the better.

Regards,

Mohabir Anil

Nandlall,

Attorney-at-Law

Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_e-paper_01_04_2020