The right to vote is only one of several considerations in ensuring free and fair elections.
Apr 12, 2025
Dear Editor:
The recent letter by Vincent Alexander (in which he relied on the constitution to demonstrate the absolute necessity of verified residency in constituency-based elections) and my own contribution (where I joined the call for Article 159(2)(c) to be properly interpreted, thereby establishing residency as a qualification for all elections) point the direction of bringing order and good sense to Guyana’s electoral laws.
Editor, let me address another related matter in the hope of furthering this restoration process. In so doing, I admit that my impressions on this matter are based mostly on newspaper reports. I therefore support the call by SN in its editorial of 31 March, titled “Public access to court records”, a recommendation I myself, as a citizen, made directly in a letter to the Chancellor of the Judiciary in September 2020.
My impressions are these. Our local courts (and the PPP in its political attack on the Opposition, which we can rightly ignore) speak of voter enfranchisement as the solitary goal of an electoral process. Statements therefore such as “This will disenfranchise voters” and, its accusatory version, “This is an attempt to disenfranchise voters” are conveyed with such absolute finality that one can sense a shutting down of the thought process.
I beg to differ. Voter enfranchisement is only one of several critical goals of the electoral process. If I were to choose a more overarching or foundational goal, my choice would be the need to accurately reflect the democratic will of the electorate. Such a higher-level goal encompasses the requirement that, yes, all those eligible to vote must be able to (that is, enfranchisement). But crucially, it also demands that the process must meet the highest standards of integrity, accuracy, legitimacy, and security. Clearly, what does it matter if all are enfranchised to vote, but elections can be manipulated by the stuffing of ballot boxes and widespread acts of multiple voting? Or, to use our most recent election court case as an illustration: how accurately can the will of the people be reflected when all are enfranchised, but allowed to vote anywhere they want outside of their constituencies in constituency elections?
It is not news that constitutional interpretation is replete with instances that require the balancing of several sacrosanct requirements, which often pull in different directions. Our local courts must appreciate that no solitary goal exists or trumps, despite how lofty it may sound. The challenge therefore the courts must philosophically and intellectually accept is to find the balance among these sacred ideals, using the constitution for guidance. Anything less produces bad law.
As such, the court’s interrogation must not stop with the declaration that the right to vote is sacred. What is sacred is the right to vote in a fair and free election whose results reflect the will of those eligible to vote. The judicial process must give weight to all these elements. I believe that should our courts fully rise to these challenges in interpreting our laws, then good sense and order would prevail in our electoral and other jurisprudence.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Lowe.
Related
Similar Articles
