Editorial | Surprised by Bouterse; democratic outcome vital for Guyana

IT IS a welcome development that Suriname’s president, Dési Bouterse, and his National Democratic Party have signalled their intention to relinquish power peacefully after last month’s election, which gave a group of opposition parties 35 of the 51 seats in the National Assembly. The group says they will form a coalition government. The National Assembly will choose Mr Bouterse’s successor in August.

That Mr Bouterse readily conceded the election is, to this newspaper, surprising. We expected he would attempt political and legal manoeuvres to stay in office, given his potential peril if he no longer controls the levers of power.

Mr Bouterse, 74, first came to power 40 years ago when he led a sergeants’ coup that overthrew the elected government of newly independent Suriname. He went on, for seven years, to lead a brutish and bloody regime, the greatest symbol of whose nastiness was the 1982 execution, at an army fort, of 15 of Suriname’s leading intellectuals, trade unionists and civil-society activists, who were accused of plotting to overthrow the junta and attempting to escape detention. After briefly seizing power again towards the end of the 1980s, Mr Bouterse went into elective politics in the 1990s.

He eventually conceded “political responsibility”, but not criminal liability, for the ‘Christmas Killings’. He blamed a dead platoon commander, Paul Bhagwandas, for giving the orders, of which he was unaware and at which he was not present. Yet, late last year, after decades of evading trial, Mr Bouterse, Suriname’s president since 2010, was convicted by a military court, along with six other former military men, for the murders and was sentenced to 20 years in jail. Those verdicts are under appeal.

Against this background, and the possibility of the Netherlands, Suriname’s former colonial ruler, reviving attempts to have him serve time for alleged drug smuggling, a peaceful transfer of power will be a major event for Suriname’s democracy, and one for which this newspaper, never an admirer of Suriname’s leader, will, if it happens, applaud Mr Bouterse.

PEACEFUL TRANSITION IN GUYANA

We hope, too, for a peaceful transfer of power in Guyana, another Caribbean Community (CARICOM) member, and Suriname’s neighbour to the east, across the Courantyne River. Guyana is still attempting to settle a disputed election, more than three months after voting. That is despite the good offices of CARICOM’s recounts of the ballots and multiple interventions of the courts.

The two alliances in the contest, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/Civic), both claimed victory.

After the initial counting of the votes, PPP/Civic was reported to have emerged from its rural heartland, home of the majority of its Indo-Guyanese support, with 59,000 votes ahead of the APNU. The incumbent APNU would have to overcome that deficit in the largely urban Region Four, including the capital, Georgetown, where it gets the bulk of its support from Afro-Guyanese. Unofficially, the APNU was reported to have done so, winning both the presidency and gaining a one-seat majority in the 65-seat assembly, membership of which is on the basis of a complex system of proportional representation.

The PPP/Civic alliance challenged the outcome, leading to a recount of the votes, monitored by CARICOM observers. At the same time, an ostensibly independent/private citizen went to court to limit presumed interference by CARICOM and ensure that Guyana’s electoral commission maintained authority over the recount. The courts were also asked for an interpretation of what amounted to a vote in determining the outcome of the electoral contest.

The latter point turned out to be significant. For while the CARICOM observers said they saw nothing in the recount – which reportedly gave the PPP/Civic a majority of 15,000 votes – that would have “thwarted the will of the people”, the chief election officer, Keith Lowenfield, told the electoral commission that up to 55 per cent of the votes were impacted by “either anomaly and/or voter impersonation or unreconciled ballot boxes”.

This week, Guyana Court of Appeal held that the words “more votes cast”, as used in Guyana’s constitution in relation to the election of the president, should be interpreted to mean “more valid votes are cast in relation to the election held on March 2, 2020”. On this basis, Mr Lowenfield has turned in a new report to the electoral commission, “taking note of the guidance of the court”. The figures from this analysis would, apparently, keep the APNU’s David Granger in the presidency.

The opposition says it is challenging the rulings at the Caribbean Court of Justice, Guyana’s final court of appeal. This could raise question of jurisdiction, given the declaration at Section 177 (4) of Guyana’s constitution that: “The Court of Appeal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to the validity of an election of a president in so far as that question depends on the qualification of any person for election or the interpretation of this constitution; and any decision of that court under this paragraph shall be final.”

Democracy demands that this issue is settled soon, which means that there should be no abuse of process, and the courts should work quickly on their deliberations. In the meantime, as frustrating as it may be, we prefer the parties follow this constitutional route, rather than fighting it out in the streets.