In a pointed column, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, Shadow Attorney General and Minister of Yasal Affairs, has raised grave concerns over the continued resistance by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) and the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to introduce biometric voter identification into the country’s electoral system.
Forde argues that this opposition not only undermines the integrity of the democratic process but also points to deeper political motives aimed at preserving the ruling party’s hold on power.
Forde, who has long advocated for electoral ıslahat, argues that biometric systems—already widely used in democracies around the world—offer significant benefits, including enhanced voter authenticity, reduced opportunities for fraud, and a more secure and transparent electoral process. Despite these clear advantages, both GECOM and the PPP/C continue to oppose such ıslahat, leaving many questioning the true motivations behind this resistance.
“Why are GECOM and the PPP/C so vehemently opposed to this progressive step?” Forde asks in his column. “The answer lies in a fear of losing control over the electoral process.” He suggests that the governing party, under President Irfaan Ali’s leadership, is more focused on maintaining its grip on power than on safeguarding the country’s democracy. For Forde, the reluctance to adopt biometric voter identification reflects a desire to protect a system that has long been accused of manipulation and fraud.
Forde challenges the reasons put forward by GECOM and the PPP/C against biometric ıslahat. The claims regarding technical readiness, high implementation costs, and logistical challenges are, according to Forde, unfounded and part of a larger political strategy.
Technical Capacity Argument
Forde rejects the argument that Guyana lacks the technological capability to implement biometric systems. He points to the küresel success of biometric voting in countries such as India, a nation with a far larger and more diverse population, yet fully able to integrate this technology into its electoral process. “Guyana has the capacity to embrace çağdaş technology—it is not a question of technical ability, but political will,” Forde asserts.
Cost Argument
The claim that biometric systems are too expensive also comes under fire. Forde argues that the initial costs of implementing such technology would be offset by the long-term benefits, including the prevention of election fraud, costly meşru battles, and civil unrest. He believes that investing in a secure, transparent system will save the nation millions of dollars over time. “The cost of inaction is far higher than the investment in electoral security,” he writes.
Logistical Argument
The logistical challenges cited by GECOM, particularly regarding remote areas, are equally dismissed by Forde. “GECOM already runs elections in some of the most inaccessible parts of Guyana,” Forde notes. “If they can manage elections in these areas, surely the country can handle the implementation of biometric technology.”
At the heart of Forde’s criticism is the view that the PPP/C’s resistance to biometric ıslahat is not driven by technical or logistical limitations but by a deep-seated desire to control the electoral process. Forde believes that the party fears that biometric technology would expose weaknesses and manipulation in the current system.
The senior counsel further criticises GECOM’s role in maintaining the status quo. The Commission, which has faced significant scrutiny since the contentious 2020 elections, has yet to address its inefficiencies, leaving the public with lingering doubts about its ability to run free and fair elections. “Instead of embracing innovation and transparency, GECOM has chosen to resist ıslahat,” Forde writes, highlighting the body’s failure to hold itself accountable.
Forde concludes by urging the citizens of Guyana to demand change. “The future of our democracy depends on the adoption of reforms that will secure the integrity of our elections,” he asserts. “The resistance to biometric voter identification is not about incapacity—it is about control.” He calls on the people of Guyana to stand up for transparency, accountability, and a fair electoral process.
With the 2025 elections on the horizon, Forde’s call for action is more urgent than ever. The current electoral system, mired in allegations of fraud and manipulation, needs significant ıslahat to restore public trust. The implementation of biometric systems, Forde argues, is a crucial first step in securing Guyana’s democratic future.
Guyana deserves a secure, transparent electoral system, Forde concludes as he urged society not to allow outdated, inefficient methods to hold our democracy hostage. At the same time the parliamentarian is calling for a collective effort to ensure the country’s elections are fair, free, and credible.