Guyana election agency fears biometric voter verification system cost
The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is showing signs of reluctance to adopt the much-solicited biometric voter verification technology after a feasibility study highlighted several potential challenges such a move will face, including the high cost of implementation.
The study, which was carried out over a period of six months, estimates that the biometric verification equipment and personnel training to facilitate the transition could cost the government about $20 million.
The findings also mention challenges faced by other countries implementing digital identification systems in elections such as fingerprint matching errors or failures, power outages in Guyana, low internet penetration, non-operationalization of the data protection legislation, a paucity of appropriate digital infrastructure, and some cultural factors as drawbacks for the introduction of the biometric voter verification system.
There have been calls over the years, including from politicians, for GECOM to go for a biometric voter verification system to replace the manual fingerprinting method currently in use in the country, as a way of improving on the credibility and transparency of elections in the South American nation.
A longtime GECOM member, Vincent Alexander, has led advocacy for the use of biometrics throughout the lifecycle of elections in the country.
The Chief Election Officer of GECOM, Vishnu Persaud, while disclosing findings of the study recently, agreed that biometric verification can ensure credible elections by eliminating impersonation and other forms of voter fraud. However, he expressed reservations that it will come at a very high cost for the country.
Apart from the financial cost, Persaud also expressed apprehensions about “privacy concerns, technical limitations, logistics, potential exclusion, maintenance, training and cost implications.”
That’s not all; he says that adopting a biometric verification system will require so much time as the process must be subsequent to changes to the country’s constitution which is currently undergoing a snail-paced government reform.
“It is essential to note that there is no existing legal provision for the introduction of biometric fingerprint identification at the place of poll. Most key constitutional amendments would require at least 43 votes from the 65-seat National Assembly. The governing People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has 33 seats. Government has already said that any changes to the voting system should await the now apparent snail’s pace constitutional reform process,” a portion of the study reads, as quoted by Demerara Waves.
Persaud says while the report recommends that the manual fingerprinting method remains a preferred option at the moment, there is need for careful planning in deciding the next step of things in that regard.
Ruling party supports use of enhanced biometrics system
Meanwhile, the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP) in Guyana says it is supportive of any move by GECOM to deploy “enhanced biometrics” in upcoming elections in the country.
In an outing reported by Demerara Waves, the party’s General Secretary and 2nd Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo, urged the opposition to take steps to better prepare for future challenges in the electoral process, rather trying to disrupt the electoral calendar.
“Once it’s not disruptive to the voting and it doesn’t disenfranchise voters and it doesn’t delay the elections, we’d look at it favourably and I’ll take it to the executive of the party,” said Jagdeo.
He added: “Whatever GECOM wants to ensure that the elections are properly held, they will get. Financially, there will be no constraint to free and fair election or clean elections. Financially, there will be no constraint to that.”
The party official said contrary to fears that biometric verification will disenfranchise voters, it will rather ensure that everyone eligible person who shows up at a polling station actually votes.
Article Topics
biometric authentication | biometrics | elections | Guyana | voter accreditation | voter registration
Comments