Dear Editor,
The release of the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) Final Report on the 2025 General and Regional Elections has prompted much reflection. While international observation is important for enhancing transparency and credibility, this particular report resembles someone “telling you the time by looking at the watch you are wearing.” It presents findings that Guyanese have long acknowledged, drawing heavily on our own commentary, our own institutions, and our own publicly documented concerns, and repackaging them as if they are newly uncovered insights.
Guyanese are fully aware of the persistent issues that affect our electoral system. Every election cycle, we encounter the same pattern of mistrust among political actors, delays in the announcement of results, communication challenges within GECOM, gaps in administrative readiness, and ambiguities in electoral laws that allow for misunderstandings and disputes. None of this is new. These matters have been discussed for decades—in Parlia-ment, in our courts, in the media, in civil society forums, and in everyday conversations across the country.
With this extensive local understanding already in place, one reasonably expects an EU final report to offer more than a summary of
concerns that Guyanese have repeatedly articulated. The value of an international observer mission lies in its ability to apply comparative expertise, draw from experiences in other democracies, and offer perspectives that may not be immediately visible to those immersed in the local political environment. Unfortunately, the report does not sufficiently rise to that expectation. Much of it relies on local voices, local sources, and widely known issues, without providing meaningful analysis that goes beyond what Guyana has already told itself.
An effective observer report should provide deeper insight, not merely restate familiar problems in external language. It should offer comparisons to other countries with similar political dynamics, present recommendations tailored to the specific legal and cultural landscape of Guyana, and demonstrate a nuanced appreciation for the historical complexities that shape our elections. Without such depth, the document risks becoming a restatement rather than an assessment.
This reliance on the perspectives of the same local actors who shape our internal debates raises legitimate questions about the independence and added value of the mission. If the conclusions are drawn primarily from Guyanese sources, then the analysis is essentially Guyanese in origin, only presented through an international lens. The obvious question then becomes: what is the unique contribution of the mission? Guyanese are entirely capable of identifying, discussing, and diagnosing the problems that have long hindered electoral confidence.
It is important to emphasize that Guyanese do not resist scrutiny. We welcome it when it is constructive, thoughtful, and grounded in a genuine understanding of our political context. We recognize that external partners can offer fresh perspectives and help build stronger, more credible systems. But when an observer mission functions largely as a recorder and re-presenter of what is already known, its purpose becomes more symbolic than practical.
Symbolic assessments may satisfy external expectations, but they do little to advance the meaningful reform that Guyana genuinely needs. True value comes from insight that explains not only what the problems are, but why they persist, and how realistic change can be achieved within the unique framework of Guyanese political culture.
A report that simply tells us the time by reading our own watch confirms our understanding but does not deepen it. If Guyana is to move forward, we need partners who bring more than repetition—we need partners who bring clarity, context, and constructive solutions that genuinely add to our national conversation.