Political cavilling

To “cavil”, the dictionary informs us, is to find fault unnecessarily; to “nit- pick” and to “quibble”. In the normal course of events, cavilling may be brushed off as being merely an annoying idiosyncrasy. But in a situation of heightened emotions, it has the potential of leading to unnecessary questioning of motives and intentions, which can trigger undesirable actions. The recent opposition, by the opposition APNU/ AFC, to the proposal by GECOM to extend the claims and objections period to facilitate the inclusion on the voters list of individuals who had received their birth certificates late, is a case in point.

Months ago, it was the opposition APNU/ AFC that highlighted the plight of voters who had fulfilled all the criteria for voting save for the possession of birth certificates.

As a matter of fact, they brought this anomaly to the attention of GECOM in writing. But, incredibly, when the PPP agreed with them and requested that GECOM extend the claims and objections (C& O) period to facilitate further registration of those who would otherwise have been disenfranchised, they cried foul.

Their rationales, in our estimation, constitute the quintessence of cavilling. Brushing off the PPP’s protestations to the contrary, it was asserted, the latter were insidiously seeking to extend their term of office. The extension of the C& O period and the ancillary tasks that facilitated additional registration, they trumpeted, would push the election date beyond its constitutionally mandated deadline. Now that GECOM has extended the C& O by a mere two weeks, the opposition APNU/ AFC is disingenuously protesting that the period is too short.

This insistence that their motives on the “birth-certificate” disenfranchisement were pure but the administration is up to no good is redolent of the opposition’s long- running propaganda that the president is gunning for a ” third term”. Since that claim was conclusively proven to be a canard, the accusation has taken a new twist that is just as baseless. But what makes the cavilling dangerous is that it plays on the fears of the populace that government is being imposed on them against their will, honed during the Burnham dictatorship.

Such fears can generate inordinate reactions, such as has occurred in the past.

The opposition APNU/ AFC are now busy taking their foot out of their collective mouth by claiming that they are not for disenfranchisement as such, but against the alleged willingness of GECOM to acquiesce to the PPP’s request.

What else is this but callous cavilling? GECOM first received the complaint from the opposition APNU/ AFC, and soon after is petitioned by the PPP. Shouldn’t APNU/ AFC be happy that on this issue all the representatives of the people for once were singing from the same page? If the issue they had raised was valid, wouldn’t GECOM’s ultimate decision have greater legitimacy when all the parties were agreed? As it turned out, one opposition-nominated commissioner of GECOM did, in fact, vote for the extension, obviating the need for the chairman to make a casting vote.

But what makes this cavilling particularly dangerous is its potential for undermining the credibility and impartiality of GECOM, which is crucial for our elections to be accepted by the widest cross-section of the people. Once again, our history paints the danger. Elections commissions that were described pithily as “toothless poodles” were the cornerstone of the frauds that ensconced the dictatorship for so long in our country. Guyanese are understandably skittish about GECOM becoming subverted in the present. It was against this scepticism that the chairman of GECOM was nominated by the opposition.

So we would like to caution the opposition APNU that, just as the old folks advised that “all skin teeth nah laff”, all cavilling is not good politics. They should be aware of our history, and stay clear of inflammatory imputations of motives that exploit the deep-seated PNC- imposed fears of our people.