Guyana Needs a Functioning Elections Commission, Not Another Diplomatic Performance

 

592GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Guyana Needs a Functioning Elections Commission, Not Another Diplomatic Performance

---

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar November 2026

Thursday’s engagement between Western diplomatic representatives and Guyana Elections Commission Chairperson Claudette Singh and Chief Elections Officer Vishnu Persaud may have served a useful purpose. But the published account offered no concrete timetable for ending the Commission’s paralysis, resolving the dispute over its composition or delivering the next Local Government Elections.

That is the problem with the language of reassurance: it can make movement sound like progress.

Guyana does not lack meetings about democracy. It lacks sufficient “accountability” for the decisions—and failures to decide—that determine whether democracy functions.

The voters changed the political landscape

The September 2025 general election produced an unmistakable change in the parliamentary opposition. We Invest in Nationhood won 16 seats, displacing APNU, which won 12, as the largest opposition party. Forward Guyana Movement secured one seat. The PPP/C retained government with 36.

Yet the three opposition-nominated commissioners remain those appointed under previous opposition leadership. The new Opposition Leader has submitted replacement nominees, but the dispute over whether those appointments can lawfully proceed remains unresolved.

This is not a minor administrative disagreement. It raises a fundamental question: how should an electoral institution accommodate a changed democratic mandate without sacrificing the independence of its officeholders?

APNU’s voters deserve representation and respect. So do WIN’s voters and those who supported the smaller parliamentary opposition. No party should be excluded simply because another has overtaken it. But neither should an earlier political configuration enjoy indefinite possession of the opposition nomination arrangements.

Commissioners are not parliamentary delegates, and GECOM should not become an assembly of party agents. Nevertheless, the Constitution’s use of opposition nominations recognizes that public confidence depends, in part, on political balance. It cannot be reasonable to invoke that balance when commissioners enter office, then declare the changed opposition landscape irrelevant when voters reorder it.

The answer must be lawful. It must also be democratically credible.

Lawful tenure is not the end of the argument

The sitting commissioners’ constitutional position deserves serious consideration. Former Speaker and Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran has explained that removing commissioners without constitutional reform would be difficult. A change in opposition leadership does not, by itself, establish that their offices have become vacant.

That matters. An independent electoral commission cannot be protected from political interference if its members can be dismissed whenever their continued presence becomes inconvenient.

But protection against arbitrary removal is not a sufficient answer to every question about legitimacy, renewal or institutional performance.

Ramkarran has also argued that the commissioners should resign on moral grounds following the change in the principal opposition. His position illustrates the distinction that too much of this debate avoids: a person may possess a defensible legal claim to remain in office while facing a substantial democratic argument for stepping aside.

It would be careless to declare these appointments unlawful simply because the political landscape has changed. It would be equally careless to treat constitutional tenure as an answer to the paralysis now confronting the country.

If the rules do not adequately reconcile continuity with a changed opposition mandate, then the rules require urgent attention. That is an argument for constitutional clarification and reform—not for unlawful dismissal, and certainly not for indefinite inaction.

The President owes the public an answer

The Opposition Leader submitted nominees and followed up with President Irfaan Ali. November reporting stated that no substantive presidential response had been provided. The legal argument against immediate appointments is that there are no vacancies to fill.

If that is the President’s position, he should explain it publicly and substantively.

He should identify what the Constitution permits, what it prevents and what process he supports to resolve the disagreement. Constitutional restraint may prohibit a particular appointment. It does not prohibit an answer.

Nor is it enough to place the problem at the feet of competing opposition parties. Attorney General Anil Nandlall has criticized WIN and APNU over their failure to agree on the commissioners’ status. But identifying opposition disagreement does not discharge the executive’s responsibility to address the matters properly before it.

The President cannot resolve every dispute within an independent commission. He can respond to nominations, articulate his constitutional position and help establish a lawful path out of an impasse that threatens public confidence.

Silence does not clarify the law. It leaves the country governed by competing assertions.

GECOM must explain why it cannot function

The Chairperson has an equally pressing obligation.

Reporting indicates that Singh linked the standstill to the changed political dispensation and the need for the new Opposition Leader to submit nominees. Those nominees were subsequently submitted. The impasse continued.

The public is entitled to a clear explanation of what now prevents the Commission from conducting its substantive business.

Is there a legal obstacle to meeting? A dispute over recognizing the sitting members? A disagreement about the effect of the nominations? Which responsibilities can proceed under the present arrangements, and which cannot?

These are questions of public administration and constitutional responsibility, not confidential political strategy.

A meeting between diplomats, the Chairperson and the Chief Elections Officer may provide information. It cannot substitute for the Commission’s collective work. Nor can discussion of reforms establish that the institution is capable of adopting and implementing them.

GECOM must explain its condition in its own authoritative voice. Citizens should not have to reconstruct the status of their electoral machinery from political accusations and diplomatic summaries.

Local democracy cannot remain on hold

The consequences extend beyond the people occupying—or seeking—commission seats.

Local Government Elections were reported as statutorily due by November 2026. The Carter Center warned that the unresolved deadlock could prevent elections within the statutory timeframe and obstruct electoral reforms.

That makes a credible timetable urgent.

Citizens need to know what preparations have been completed, what decisions remain outstanding, who is responsible for making them and whether elections can still be delivered within the applicable legal framework. If delay cannot be avoided, the explanation should be specific, public and accompanied by a recovery plan.

Funding alone does not answer those questions. More than G$6.9 billion in current expenditure was approved for GECOM in the 2026 budget, including support for operations and Local Government Elections. An allocation is not an election. Institutional capacity must be demonstrated through decisions and delivery.

Local elections are not a favor national leaders extend when their disagreements have been settled. They are how communities hold local officeholders accountable and renew—or withdraw—their authority.

Citizens must not lose that opportunity because powerful actors find it easier to defend their positions than resolve their differences.

Diplomacy must lead somewhere

The diplomats should not be criticized merely for meeting GECOM’s leadership. Engagement may help where public confrontation has failed.

But engagement needs a public test.

The published account identifies subjects discussed, not measurable commitments secured. That does not prove the meeting achieved nothing. It does mean the public has not yet been shown what it achieved.

There is an important distinction between confidential diplomacy and unaccountable process. Nobody needs a transcript of every private conversation. Citizens do need evidence that repeated expressions of concern produce institutional movement.

A resumed program of Commission meetings would be evidence. A substantive presidential response would be evidence. A lawful process for resolving the tenure dispute, a published reform program and a credible local-election timetable would be evidence.

Another adjective would not.

The government, the opposition, the Chairperson and the commissioners have different powers. They therefore bear different responsibilities. But none can reasonably claim that responsibility ends with explaining why somebody else must act first.

Guyana does not need a constitutional shortcut. It needs constitutional leadership: people prepared to explain the law, confront its shortcomings and fulfil their own obligations while pursuing a lawful settlement.

Until that happens, “constructive engagement” will remain an inadequate description of a country waiting for its electoral institutions to work.

Democracy is not maintained by the frequency with which officials discuss it. It is maintained when they perform the duties entrusted to them. The meeting is over. The mandate remains.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>