October 5 a special day to remember

## Summary of Conclusions In the 24 years since independence, massive, systematic electoral fraud has denied the Guyanese people their right to freely elect their government. Unable to express themselves politically in free and fair elections and constricted by the repressive pressures of a single, dominant party, hundreds of thousands of Guyanese have sought freedom by emigrating, principally to the United States and Canada. Today, Guyana stands at a human rights crossroads. A national election, the first in five years, must be held by March 1991. If that election is ... The Path to Control: 1967 and 1968 Legislative Changes Before the 1968 national election, the PNC-dominated government made a number of fundamental changes in the electoral system, bringing the electoral machinery tightly within its control and reversing the open and free process which had prevailed until then. These changes are detailed in Political Freedom in Guyana, the 1985 report by Americas Watch and the BPHRG, and will only be summarized here. First, and most important, the entire electoral machinery -- from voter registration through polling and counting -- was removed from the direction and control of the previously independent Elections Commission. In 1967, the National Assembly had passed the National Registration Act, ostensibly to establish a national system of registration and identity cards. A subtle but significant change followed the next year: instead of basing the voter rolls on a registration process conducted by the Elections Commission, the new elections statute -- the Representation of the People Act -- provided that the voter rolls would be "extracted" from the national registration list. Since that list was created by the government, under the supervision of the Commissioner of Registration, the Elections Commission effectively lost control of the registration process. Moreover, the Commissioner of Registration became directly responsible, subject to the general direction and authority of the Minister of Home Affairs, for all aspects of elections, from the extraction of voter lists through the operation of polling places and the counting of ballots. His title became Commissioner of Registration and Chief Elections Officer. The role of the Elections Commission was reduced to "oversight," and its listless performance of that function ever since caused it to be aptly characterized by Lord Avebury in 1980 as "the toothless poodle of the PNC." Several significant changes were also made in the electoral law itself. Two new methods of voting were authorized: (1) postal voting "if it is likely to be impracticable or seriously inconvenient by reason of the general nature of [the voter's] occupation, service or employment, or for other good cause, for [the voter] to go in person to the polling place," and (2) overseas voting, in which Guyanese living abroad could vote through ballots ostensibly obtained from Guyanese officials in foreign countries. These new voting methods were obviously ripe for subversion by those in control of the election machinery and ultimately proved to be so transparently abused that they were abolished in 1985. By that time, however, the PNC had firmly established its position in power. The government also enacted the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act which, together with later restrictive interpretations by the Guyanese courts (see below), made legal challenges to the result of any election virtually impossible. In particular, the result of an election cannot be challenged unless the High Court is "satisfied . . . beyond a reasonable doubt" that the practice or act challenged would have changed the result of the election so drastically that either the order of the parties under proportional representation or more than half the seats in the National Assembly would change. Needless to say, there has never been a successful judicial challenge to an election since this stringent standard was introduced. ... The 1968 Election These changes were in place for the 1968 national election, and the results were striking. For the first time, the PNC was able to achieve a clear majority in the National Assembly -- 30 of the 53 seats -- making a coalition with the UF no longer necessary. A pattern of fraud was also established. The government succeeded in registering tremendous growth in the number of enrolled voters, out of proportion to population growth. This inflated list made overseas, postal and proxy * votes possible in significant, albeit highly questionable, numbers. For example, when two British groups investigated the lists of Guyanese voters supposedly living in the United Kingdom, they found that somewhere between 50 and 75% of these supposed voters * Under the original version of the Representation of the People Act, many classes of persons, including those "unlikely by reason of...physical infirmity to travel to the polling places," could have a "proxy" -- another voter registered at the same polling place -- vote for them, upon presentation of a signed form. did not exist. The overseas votes went overwhelmingly to the PNC. There were also reports of irregularities at the polls themselves and in the condition of the ballot boxes as ultimately counted. Such reports continued through the last election in 1985. ... The 1980 Election An election was held under the new Constitution in December 1980. Concern with past practices led the Guyana Human Rights Association to request the presence of international observers. Although President Burnham announced that "anyone who wants to observe the elections may do so," a request for accreditation by Lord Avebury, chairman of a team proposed by the BPHRG, was rejected by the government. Nevertheless, a team of 11 observers from the United Kingdom, Canada, the Caribbean and the United States came to observe the elections, without governmental support. At the end of the voting, they announced an immediate and succinct conclusion: "we [are] obliged to conclude, on the basis of abundant and clear evidence, that the election was rigged massively and flagrantly. . . ." The BPHRG report detailed the manifold deficiencies of the electoral laws and machinery, limitations on political assembly and activity, and actual abuses and illegal activity on election day. The observers reported intimidation of voters and outright denial of access to the polls; deletion of names from voter lists; abuse of postal and proxy voting; double registration; late arrival of ballot boxes; irregularities in voting hours; intimidation by military presence; and massive "recycling" of voters, apparently with the support and assistance of the police. Following the closing of the polls, the observers reported the forcible expulsion of opposition polling agents from the place where the ballots were to be counted, as well as a delay of at least 15 hours in announcing the first returns. Preceding the election, the observers also reported serious "anomalies" in the preliminary voter lists, including addresses that did not exist, substantial numbers of voters no longer living at the addresses indicated, and double entries of names. ... The 1985 Election The Guyanese Constitution provides that Parliament may not sit for more than five years, at which time it must be dissolved and an election held within three months. Accordingly, a national election was held in December 1985. Although the Americas Watch/BPHRG team sent to examine electoral conditions was not allowed into Guyana, it interviewed a number of individuals in advance of the elections and issued a report recommending fundamental changes to the Guyanese electoral system. Most of these changes were not implemented. The government did make several important changes, however. Most significantly, the facially abusive device of postal voting was abolished altogether, and non-resident voting was restricted to government employees living abroad and bona-fide students studying abroad. But the many other obstacles to free and fair elections were not removed. No international observers were present on election day. One international journalist, Anthony Jenkins of the United Kingdom, was beaten by a mob when he accompanied Dr. Cheddi Jagan on a visit to a rural polling place to investigate an irregularity. In 1990, the government told Americas Watch that this was Mr. Jenkins's fault, on the grounds that he had violated Guyanese law requiring all non-accredited persons to remain at least 200 yards from polling places. Jenkins, by his own account, did not enter the polling place and was assaulted outside. Despite the lack of international observer presence, Guyanese domestic monitoring groups documented massive electoral fraud. The day following the election, an amalgamation of civic leaders, including the Anglican and Catholic Bishops of Guyana, reported that the election had been characterized by "widespread disenfranchisement, multiple voting, ejection of polling agents, threats, intimidation, violence and collusion by police and army personnel." These leaders further noted that the government had only then started to announce the results, more than 24 hours after the polls had closed. ... Not surprisingly, the PNC once again announced a massive landslide victory: 77.5% PNC, 15.5% PPP, 3.2% UF and a total of 2.5% for all other parties combined. These figures gave the PNC 42 seats in the National Assembly, while all other parties combined had only 11. Furthermore, since membership on the Elections Commission is restricted to parties with at least five seats in the National Assembly,