Response to Kit Nascimento’s accusations

Jan 29, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

I find it bemusing yet quite disturbing that Mr. Kit Nascimento accuses Leader of the Alliance for Change, Mr. Nigel Hughes and Mr. Aubrey Norton, Leader of the Opposition, of “discrediting” GECOM “in anticipation of crying foul” post-elections 2025. Instead of addressing the legitimate concerns raised about the bloated voters list and the absence of adequate mechanisms to ensure transparency, Mr. Nascimento attempts to deflect by attributing malice to the opposition. This tactic, characteristic of an outmoded propagandist rhetoric, ignores the democratic imperative for scrutiny and accountability in election processes. It is apparent that while he seeks to cloak his commentary in the guise of reasoned analysis, his missive is little more than a desperate bid to maintain relevance in a Guyana that has long moved beyond the narrow elitist confines he so evidently represents. His arguments, riddled with contradictions, unsubstantiated claims, and a transparent bias against those challenging the status quo, fail to withstand even the most cursory scrutiny.

As citizens pay attention to the alarming position of the Chair of GECOM surrounding the issue of biometrics and the call for a clean voters list, the narrative of Nascimento so clearly mirrors the PPP playbook that one is left in no doubt as to his allegiances. This is a similar tactic used by Jagdeo in the lead up to the 2020 election, and again now, claiming that the PPP already has this election in the bag, so that when the obviously flawed results are announced, there can be little argument.  This assertion conveniently dismisses the well-documented history of electoral misconduct and inefficiencies within the electoral machinery—a history Mr. Nascimento should be acutely aware of, given his age and tenure under the Burnham regime.

The gentleman’s casual dismissal of the “bloated” voters list is perhaps the most glaring example of his intellectual dishonesty. While he acknowledges that the list contains names of deceased individuals and overseas residents, he astonishingly suggests that this poses no problem because there is “no proof” of these individuals voting. The very existence of these names on the list creates the potential for abuse, and it is the responsibility of GECOM to ensure that such vulnerabilities are addressed proactively.

Furthermore, his argument against biometric voting based on time constraints is both short-sighted and unconvincing. The introduction of biometrics is not a novel or unattainable concept; it is a standard measure in modern democracies to ensure the integrity of elections. If GECOM and the administration were genuinely committed to fairness, the process would have been initiated since they took office in 2020, well in advance of this year’s election, instead of now hiding behind procedural excuses. It is for this reason among many other glaring discrepancies that the call has been made for the removal of Justice Claudette Singh as Chair.

Mr. Nascimento leans heavily on the Private Sector Commission’s (PSC) statement, which he no doubt crafted, in support of GECOM, but this reliance only underscores the entrenched elitism that continues to plague Guyanese politics. The PSC, long criticized for its alignment with the governing administration, is hardly an impartial arbiter of electoral fairness. Its pronouncements, therefore, carry little weight in a discussion that demands neutrality and credibility.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of Mr. Nascimento’s letter is its tone—a thinly veiled disdain for those who dare to challenge the existing power dynamics. His rhetoric reflects the lingering vestiges of an understandably colonial mindset, one that seeks to delegitimize the voices of ordinary Guyanese while elevating the perspectives of a select few. This is not the language of democracy; it is the language of an elitist class desperately clinging to its waning influence.

It is worth noting that Mr. Nascimento’s political lineage—rooted in the United Force’s coalition with the PNC in 1964—epitomizes his opportunistic alliances that have historically undermined genuine progress in Guyana. His current attempt to position himself as a defender of democracy is, therefore, not only ironic but deeply disingenuous.

Having actively followed emerging political narratives over the decades, Mr. Nascimento should be commended for his continued engagement in the public discourse. However, relevance is not maintained through the regurgitation of outdated arguments or the perpetuation of class biases. Guyana is a nation on the cusp of transformation, driven by a new generation that values transparency, equity, and accountability over the tired narratives of the past.

Mr. Nascimento’s letter, far from being a compelling critique, serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for fresh perspectives and innovative solutions and should serve as a wake-up call to those who remain invested in the future of Guyana.

In conclusion, all utterances by those who attempt to undermine the legitimate concerns will be challenged, including those made by Nascimento as we must ensure that we respect and uphold the evolving demands of a modern democracy. The people of Guyana deserve better than the petty squabbles and hollow rhetoric of yesteryear. We deserve an electoral process that inspires confidence, not one mired in suspicion and inefficiency and blatant attempts at election fraud through flawed rhetoric.

Regards,

Name withheld

(Response to Kit Nascimento’s accusations)

---

• Alliance For Change, democratic imperative, GECOM, Jagdeo, Propagandist

---