GECOM is a microcosm of power-sharing between the PPP/C and the APNU+AFC

Dear Editor,

GECOM is probably the only constitutional body in Guyana that is truly bipartisan, at least for now, with equal representation from the two parliamentary political parties.

With just three representatives from each side, and a chairperson who is expected to be independent, GECOM is the only civilian Constitutional body that has a massive bureaucratic staff complement called a Secretariat.

GECOM is the only Constitutional body with a full time CEO and Deputy CEO. It has its own Legal Officer and a Public Relations Officer. GECOM has an office in each of the ten administrative regions of Guyana.

GECOM has billions of dollars at its disposal.

From a financial, human resource and technological perspective, GECOM is well endowed compared to other constitutional bodies whom some call, its poorer cousins.

In sum, GECOM is unique in many respects.

With some fundamental institutional, administrative, leadership and compositional changes, GECOM can be a model for what other constitutional and multiparty bodies should look like in a post-election Guyana.

Recruitment of staff for all these bodies must undergo radical change. Recruitment must be based on meritocracy and, of necessity, mirror the ethnic make-up of Guyana.

Rigid and extensive professional training will go a far way in expunging any political influence that may have contaminated GECOM’s staff from top to bottom.

With the inevitability of a change of government looming larger and larger on the political horizon, talk about powersharing and inclusive governance has become the flavour of the day.

While the narrative is not new, what is peculiar, is that this particular narrative surfaces only when a PPP/C victory at elections is certain or while the party is in office.

The narrative is usually embellished with a veneer of race purporting that African Guyanese feel racially insecure under an ‘Indian dominated’ PPP/C government.

It cannot be denied that racial and ethnic insecurity do exist in Guyana but at the same time, it cannot be denied that while in government, the PPP/C by way of public policy, public service management, administrative and budgetary allocations did its level best to address these insecurities.

Divisive and ethnically charged narratives undermine efforts at strengthening democracy and national unity. In elections season, such narratives can be weaponized to deny Guyanese the right to elect a government of their choice or to foist on them, a makeshift governance arrangement that lacks national consensus.

The narrative is used calculatedly by some politicians to leverage representation on state and government bodies especially when the defeat of their party is envisioned with an eagle eye.

In the circumstances, GECOM is a microcosm of power-sharing between the PPP/C and the APNU+AFC.

At the moment, it is at GECOM that real power lies, in that, it is that body that will finally determine who will hold executive and state power for the next five years, assuming that the rigging cabal, in connivance with its cohorts embedded at GECOM do not upset nor delay, a smooth and orderly transition.

Despite its uniqueness and the checks and balances, the power sharers at GECOM are unable to settle their differences on key issues in a mature, constructive, mutually advantageous and amicable manner.

It takes the casting vote of the chairman to determine which route the body must take when confronted with unsettled matters that surface among the power sharers.

Using GECOM as an example of what inclusiveness should look like futuristically, the advocates of power sharing and inclusiveness must ask themselves what are the alternative route/ routes to inclusiveness? what should its shape and form look like?

And are there lessons to be learnt from the GECOM model?

And to those who say GECOM has outlived its usefulness as presently constituted, they must say whether in their view, we have arrived at the end of GECOM’s history as the last bastion of a power sharing body in Guyana?

This brings us to the next question; should GECOM‘s future membership be restricted only to parties represented in a new parliament of Guyana?

These are just a few of the questions a future Constitutional Reform Commission/Constituent Assembly, embracing consultative democracy, will have to explore and seek answers to as regards a future GECOM in a post election Guyana. Yours faithfully,

Clement J. Rohee