Dear Editor
I WANT to comment on a story captioned “Election Day process so impressive that it was impossible to cheat” which was published by a local newspaper on March 31. The news story sought to explain how the European Ambassador was impressed with the various levels of safeguards in the electoral process, and that he believes it was impossible for any party to cheat at the polling stations.
That news story, and the Ambassador’s statements, demonstrate why it was so important that CARICOM, instead of the Carter Center or the EU Observers, supervise the ongoing recount process, and it also points to an underlying reason why some observer groups are unable to detect electoral fraud. I believe that the EU Ambassador was sincere – he most likely believes that it was impossible to cheat at the polling stations. The Ambassador, like some international observers, fell victim to what is often referred to as “mirror imaging”. He is assessing the electoral process in Guyana through the lens of the electoral process in his country. He said “One person came to vote. He or she has to identify himself, but then also, he has to be seen on the list and there are pictures, which in my country, we never had pictures. So, I was quite positively impressed”. And there is the problem. In more established democracies there is no need for some of the electoral safeguards we see in burgeoning democracies. For example, as the Ambassador noted, several countries do not require a photo-ID to cast ballots. Photo-ID’s are not necessary in those places, because several other safeguards such as updated electoral registries (voters list), and electronic voting prevent multiple voting by a single person or dead and otherwise absent people being able to vote.
So, by using a European frame of reference, of course any European observer would be impressed by all the safeguards we have. And because the Ambassador is impressed by the safeguards, in his mind, his instincts therefore prevents him from seeing the possibility that dead or absent people could have voted in Guyana. Similarly, because there is no expectation of collusion between political parties and polling station presiding officers in his country, it is almost impossible for him to see that possibility in Guyana…. Again, the effects of mirror imaging.
Mirror Imaging does not affect only Europeans. It affects everyone, including those observers from Canada or the US, unless they find a way to counter its effects. Mirror Imaging basically explains that we expect people to behave the way would normally do in similar situations. The EU Ambassador clearly expected Guyanese voters to be like European voters. The Canadian and American observers may also have expected Guyanese voters to behave like voters in their respective countries. And this could help explain why they do not seem to understand how easy it is to compromise the integrity of Guyana’s elections with the support of a bloated list of electors, and the unwitting support of the international community.
The observers’ failure to detect fraud, and their inabilities to appreciate the likelihood of election-day skullduggery, are important factors contributing to the electoral challenges we now face. It is uncertain whether those observers who have already determined that the PPP did not commit fraud would be able to change their opinions, even when presented with verifiable evidence. The PPP, through the business elites in the Private Sector Commission, continues to have the propaganda advantage. That so far has provided cover for the party since many observers are yet to accept that dead people could vote. That cover will soon be removed and what is exposed may be shocking to some.
Respectfully
Max Mohamed
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_06_02_2020