Mr. Peter Wickham’s view that Guyana should go to elections with the corrupt and expired list is not malicious, but it wrong. A few weeks ago Mr. Wickham conducted an opinion poll showing President David Granger with a comfortable lead over Irfaan Alli and the PPP, and it is possible that he has confidence in his work. He maybe feels that with that kind of margin a defective list will not make a difference, but he is wrong. He is wrong to think so, and he is wrong to say so.
Mr. Wickham mentioned that several Caribbean countries have bloated lists as if to suggest that makes our list, which is bloated by over 45%, okay. He is from a country with a constituency system. In most constituencies, one party or the other wins overwhelmingly. A bloated list in that constituency will not affect the outcome because the margin of error is far less than the margin of victory.
In Guyana, it is different, we have proportional representation. The errors in the list are not divided into constituencies. That 200,000 defective names on the list create the opportunity to impact directly on the outcome of the entire elections. In the last two elections, the margin of victory for the coalition parties was 5,000 votes. A question for Mr. Wickham is, what is the level of fraud you think took place that allowed a party as unpopular as the PPP to lose the elections by a mere 5,000 votes? What is the extra corrupt effort needed to erase this 5,000 votes?
As someone who makes his living in the election process, Mr. Wickham should know that election experts recommend that the defects in a voters list should be kept below the likely margin of victory. And while your poll shows a great advantage for President Granger, most Guyanese believe that come election day the polls will tighten, and the elections will be decided on a dime. 200,000 defective names are just too much.
I am also wondering why Mr. Wickham felt the need to make this suggestion. The CCJ has put this matter in the hands of the constitutional actors, in the President, the Parliament, GECOM, and the Leader of the Opposition. I do hope he did to fall for the PPP argument that failure to hold the elections by a certain date will do irreparable harm, and therefore the use of the corrupted list cannot be avoided. He should know that greater harm will be inflicted by the use of the corrupt list. What is worse for Guyana, a two-month delay, or a five-year confusion?
Mr. Wickham should also consider that this situation was deliberately orchestrated by the PPP to avoid House to House Registration. I am not talking about the actions of PPP Commissioners at GECOM to stymied registration. I am talking about the procurement of Charandass Persaud’s vote. Preventing House to House Registration was the motivating factor for seeking and securing the corrupt vote.
It might be surprising but it is true. The PPP lives in mortal fear of a clean list. In 1990 the PPP’s call for a clean list delayed the elections by two years. House to House Registration was conducted but when it was finished the PPP still was not satisfied. They produced 50,000 names, and the Carter Center pressured GECOM to add those names. The PPP made merry with those names and had comfortable election victories in 1992, 1997, 2001, and 2006.
After the House to House Registration in 2008, Dr Roger Luncheon called a press conference to complain that the list was too small. Only on this occasion, there was no Carter Center to do their bidding to get another 50,000 names on the list. They failed to secure a majority in the 2011 elections, and they were removed from government by the 2015 elections. In essence, they lost both elections after the 2008 House to House Registration.
However, if Mr. Wickham pays attention to the registration figures from 2011 when the PPP lost their majority, and the 2015 elections, he would notice a spike in registration. The yearly increase in the list moved from approximately 14,000 to 28,000; a 100% increase. Population statistics cannot explain that high level of registration. During this period alone we could have added over 50,000 fictitious names to the list.
The PPP is trying to avoid the impact a clean list would have on their electoral chances. They learnt from 2008, and have apparently vowed not to let it happen again. Their talk about the timeline is just a ruse. They would holdout for the next 12 months, if it was up to them, to prevent the use of a clean list. You, Mr. Wickham, should not allow yourself to be complicit in the PPP’s scheme to steal an election.