Do we view our democratic rights and liberties and the constitution in the same way?

Feb 07, 2023 Letters

Dear Editor,

It would appear that the concept of election denialism which has long existed, mainly within the lower, less-developed spectrum of the international democratic scale, derogatively labelled as banana republics, has been spreading upward and outward at an alarming pace since former US President Trump made it the hallmark of his political legacy.

Some observers conclude that it has even become the central operating principle of one of the two major political parties in the USA where many candidates, executives and legislators have adopted the policy of refusing to abide by the results of elections and a willingness to perpetuate misinformation, fraud, harassment and violence to cast doubt and disaffection, and to overturn unfavourable results.

The famed US reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, concluded that the 42^nd President of the USA was “the first seditious President” and that “Donald Trump not only sought to destroy the electoral system through false claims of voter fraud and unprecedented public intimidation of state election officials but he then attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his duly elected successor for the first time in American history”. Allegations of voter fraud were many but these were recognized by the courts and election officials as theories in search of factual evidence which did not exist and were largely rejected.

Some allegations including the claim that voting machines were “flipping votes in the computer system or adding votes that did not exist” has led to multi-billion dollar defamation lawsuits against the agents and media outlets that recklessly perpetuated such falsehoods. The absence of evidence was not a deterrent to such unprincipled actors who clearly believed that they could, either through persuasion or intimidation, find a judge or election official to engage in constitutional betrayal to decertify an election defeat.

The difference between success in Guyana, and failure in the USA, employing the identical strategy of false claims of election fraud, harassment and intimidation of election officials, violent insurrection and contingent elections is precisely because of the different postures adopted by the courts and election officials in both places.

In the US, the courts, election officials in critical swing states, the Justice Department and the Vice-President rejected the many false claims of fraud in spite of immense political pressure, including threats to the life of the Vice-President and members of Congress. Unfortunately, Guyana was different; the courts and the Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission, likely under very severe local and international pressure, were instrumental in decertifying valid election results and introducing contingent elections to deliver a reversal.

A federal judge in the USA was clear that these actions “would have permanently ended the peaceful transfer of power, undermining American democracy and the constitution.” Do we view our democratic rights and liberties and the constitution in the same way? And what is to become of us if parties, or individuals, believe that it is permissible to employ such tactics in the future, or is it a singular privilege or right for some?

Sincerely,

Oscar Dolphin

• executives, Guyana, legislators, Oscar Dolphin, US President Trump