DARREL P ALLAHAR
THERE WAS a time before the digital revolution, a safer time when children were allowed to play outside. Every Trinidadian/Tobagonian child knew or learnt the hard way that after mischievously pelting a jep’s nest (which we here call a jack spaniard wasp), you run and hide from the angry swarm.
Our national institutions, autonomous and otherwise, are quite rightly prime targets for the pelting of big stones, as they must be. Free public discourse inevitably involves the stirring up of passion, debate and the public hum of ideas and opinions. Confidence in our public institutions is not something to be presumed but earned and sustained.
So it came to pass that very recently the well-intentioned chairman of the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC), in a manner that was surely not mischievous, and seemingly out of nowhere, pelted a very big stone at the electoral process over which he presides. A welcome blow, and from all accounts a planned one.
The chairman, whom I have always known as an upright, responsible and careful individual, revealed that upon legal advice received, the EBC will be asking all 41 returning officers to declare membership in a political party. He also shared that the EBC does not appoint returning officers who are what he described as “party activists.”
A good start, I might say. The statements raised the ire of several politicians. There was a buzz, a few commentaries in the media, but I wouldn’t call it a swarm of debate. Disappointing to say the least.
Yes, there was focus on why only returning officers and not, say, the presiding officers. There was talk about whether such disclosure would make a difference, since people do not have to be members of political parties to have a political allegiance. We have yet to know what precisely the EBC views as “party activists.”
The buzz has died down for now, as eyes are on the recently published report on constitutional reform. Like children playing in the yard, our collective attention span is dictated by the next big event.
Our national electoral system, that monolithic and enduring institution which includes the EBC and our electoral laws and regulations, still hangs like a jep's nest, hardly ever disturbed because it has always been there.
After independence, no substantial changes were made to the way we cast and count ballots. An autonomous institution recommends changes in boundaries and oversees the process. Apart from one commission of enquiry in the past, have we really taken a good look at the mechanics of the exercise and how political allegiance by election officers can influence the outcome of our elections?
It is interesting and timely that the chairman of the EBC itself has raised the issue. In my respectful view he did not go far enough, but, as things go, he has given us an opportunity to ask questions and to demand answers.
Confidence in the fairness of a process is one thing. Confidence in the fairness of individuals administering that process is another. Both are essential to the le
