A new voters register
Editorial
Stabroek News
November 17, 2003
At a press conference on Thursday PNCR Leader Robert Corbin made it clear that his party has no confidence in the integrity of the national voter database which was used for the 2001 elections and wants the Elections Commission to discard it and start a new registration process for the 2006 elections.
The PNCR position is based on the findings of experts it hired to review the computerised electoral roll and a subsequent review done by an Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance expert at the invitation of the Elections Commission.
Given the PNCR's position, it seems that the Elections Commission will have no choice but to commit to a fresh registration exercise if it wants to raise the level of confidence in the electoral process and convince the main opposition party and its supporters to participate fully in the pending local and national elections. Additionally, as Mr Corbin pointed out, if the Commission is intent on pursuing continuous registration then it needs a credible and widely accepted database to make the necessary adjustments.
The decision to construct a new voters list will mean having to launch one of those torturous house-to-house enumerations which will plod on endlessly and not improve anything measurably. As has been argued for many years by experts and those familiar with the electoral process, continuous registration is the way to go. It will allow constant updating of the voters list by the addition of those who have attained the age of majority and the deletions of those who have passed on or have formally migrated. This would obviate the need for the periodic nation-wide registration exercises as we will now likely have.
However, it must be said that no matter what steps are taken to improve the quality of the register, a dedicated obstructionist or one simply out to make mischief and cast doubt on the quality of a voters list will find the means, however flimsy, to impugn even the purest electoral roll.
In the face of the decline across the board in the quality of our human resources, mistakes will be made by enumerators, supervisors, data entry operators, programmers, IT specialists etc. Coupled with voter apathy, these mistakes will lead to people being left off the list, duplications, incorrect names, divisional misplacements etc. Testing of a list before elections is meant to determine how widespread these problems are, if systemic flaws exist and whether there was any treachery or orchestrated efforts behind these defects. No matter what corrective actions are taken, there will be some level of error in the list. On voting day, the sheer volume of transactions and the logistical precision required for coping with hundreds of polling booths will inevitably lead to problems and present cases of persons who had gone through all of the necessary steps but are still unable to vote. But are these problems enough to nullify an election or to malign a voters roll?
From presiding over rigged elections between 1968 and 1985, the PNC has been transformed into a bastion of sermons about alleged electoral misdeeds in the 1997 and 2001 general elections. Many of these claims have been tested by experts and nothing but generally expected and acceptable levels of errors have been discerned. Indeed, the only basis for the high court's nullification of the 1997 results was the illegality of voter ID cards, an innovation, the PNC - one of the plaintiffs in the matter - had itself supported and offered legislative backing for.
The country's recent elections history shows clearly that no matter how efficient an electoral process, it can be easily destabilised by muck-raking and carefully targeted propaganda attacks. This is not a problem that will be remedied by a new register. To the contrary, compiling a new register will provide fertile ground for another round of enervating and debilitating charge and counter charge from which the shell-shocked public will have to keep ducking.
There is also another immediate challenge. If the PNCR is against the use of this list for the 2006 general elections, then by extension it should not be used for the long-delayed local government polls. It would then mean that a new house-to-house exercise will have to take on greater urgency to allow local government elections to be held sometime next year or at the latest early in 2005 to avoid it being caught up again in the hurly-burly that accompanies preparations for the national elections.
Clearly the bi-partisan committee on local government reform and the Elections Commission have much work ahead of them and the public waits to hear what they have to say on these issues.