This is the electoral season of numbers, spreadsheets and tables; they are everywhere. This numerical deluge is being driven by the high political passions due to the just concluded general and regional elections. In this context, numbers are being thrown around in the service of political interests. In the course of this occurrence, invariably, confusion and uncertainty reign supreme. Citizens are having a difficult time trying to establish the truth. This is the precise reason why the framers of the Constitution ensured that the ultimate repository for electoral numerical truth resided in the court of law.
THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION
Data, statistics and numbers are often cited or quoted to strengthen an argument or present conclusions that are consistent with a particular objective in the court of public opinion. Invariably, half of the story is often told because those who engage in such, would carefully select specific numbers and ignore those that are inconsistent with their narrative. In such a circumstance, you are not under oath or subject to cross-examination by judicial officers and processes. Besides, those who possess the economic resources can control the narrative through vast systems of communication and ensure what is far from the truth is accepted as reality. When this is placed in the electoral circumstance, it teems with dangerous implications for the average country and it is for this safe reason, the test of verification and credibility must remain with the judicial branch.
Further, the art of cherry-picking is a stark reminder of why we cannot leave the verification of electoral numbers to the whims and fancies of the court of public opinion. It is the main feature in public debating where numbers are plucked from thin air to buttress arguments. In this, there is a wholesale suppression of numerical facts that may disprove a particular argumentation. Proponents often present spreadsheets, tables and documented statistics to argue a case that does not face the stringent judicial critique. There is no final arbiter in the form of a judge who can demand the best standards of verification.
ELECTORAL NUMBERS IN THE POLITICAL SPHERE
Political parties, by virtue of their raison d’etre being the passionate pursuit of power, should never be left to decide the credibility of electoral numbers. Even when they have SoPs being waved about with brimming confidence and certainty, this responsibility must never be left up to political actors. Even if political actors release every bit of electoral documents and subscribe to the highest standard of transparency, the ultimate test of verification and credibility of electoral numbers must not remain with these entities. For very simple reasons, in this modern technological era, we cannot trust documents. Political parties will never subscribe to the truth that is not consistent with their aims and objectives, and verification and credibility will forever be subject to brinksmanship and gamesmanship. In a court of law, documents are subject to forensics checks, witnesses are called and rigorous investigative methods ensure there is the establishment of electoral truth. This is directly linked to fairness and justice which are key concepts that keep a society glued and insulated from disintegration. It is apparent to me and ought to be apparent to any objective and reasonable mind that this cannot be subject to the vicissitudes of the political sphere. In this realm, infinite lies are told in a cocktail of numerical concoctions due to the nature of politics. It is the least safe place for electoral numbers.
ELECTORAL NUMBERS IN THE COURT OF LAW
The legitimate court of law is that celestial place where fairness and justice beckon. Trials and all their processes and systems are a search for ultimate truth. Where there is injury, the court provides the forum where the remedy can be procured. In the court of law, electoral numbers would have to face all the requirements of evidentiary standards: admissibility, authentication,
relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules of physical evidence. There are various standards of evidence, standards showing how strong the evidence must be to meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt. Such supreme levels of veracity are anathema to the court of public opinion or the political sphere. It is against this backdrop, the arguments for the dogged commitment to the elections petition culture are sustained.
One might ask, what is the true will of the Guyanese as expressed on March 2, 2020? That question should be put to a court of law, and, therein, the ultimate verification and credibility of electoral numbers shall be established.
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_13_2020