OPINION: There was no low voter turnout

Last Updated on Monday, 29 September 2025, 23:58 by Writer

by GHK Lall

I think the time has come to stop talking about low voter turnout. Local and foreign polling day observers spoke of low voter turnout. So, did a political figure as in the know as PPP General Secretary and Guyana Vice President, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo. I did, too. Could it be that all were and are wrong? I know that I was, for I was always using GECOM’s list of 757k voters. The perpetuation of what is clearly and sharply flawed, I admit. With 205k schoolchildren, then 757k as eligible voters signals that Guyana’s population is close to a million. Even with long-term visitors and Venezuelans, a million is a stretch. So, was low really low, and what is there to support that, or was the 2025 turnout in keeping with national trends?

I use 2006 as the starting point. The turnout in 2006 was 69.3% (341,326 of 492,369). In 2011, it was 72.9% (346,717 of 475,496). In 2015, turnout was 72.9% (416,055 from 570, 708). In 2020, it was 72.5% (480,061 from 661,378). And, in 2025, the turnout was 70.2% (442,550 as a percentage of 630,000). The question troubling Guyanese is: from where did 630,000 come? It is a fair question, given the considerably smaller number of 127k eligible voters than the official list that GECOM has published. The exact number should be 629,000 plus, for that was the number tendered by Prime Minister Mark Phillips in response to interest on how many Guyanese collected the $100k cash grant. I seek the PM’s indulgence on rounding his 629,000 plus number to 630k. It is a realistic number; certainly, one more realistic than that total in GECOM’s list. How so? Because when one adds 205k school children, gleaned from the Because We Care cash grant, there is what is closer to Guyana’s population estimates. I should say ‘guesstimates, or educated extrapolations, given the absence of the last census results.

Now, let’s look at those percentages again. In the last five national elections, the voter turnout ranged from a low of 69.2% (2006) to a high of 72.9% (2011 and 2015). In 2025, as based on current known voter turnout numbers, and an eligible voter base (interpreted from the cash grant), the turnout was 70.2%. It is within range, part of the trend, of voter turnout of the four prior elections. How to interpret this, if it holds, which I think it should, since there is little else to challenge it.

From where did low turnout emerge? My own thinking was flawed because it was based on GECOM’s number, which everyone knows is precarious, and shouldn’t feature in any measurement. I think that expectations were for a high turnout, due to the growing presence of oil, its heavy contribution to the national economy, and the contradiction of a small number (less than 1%) of haves, and a local world profusely dotted with have-nots. If the poor and hurting in Guyana were to be represented by a tattoo, it would be one that pierces and colors many parts of the map, almost a full upper body marking. I think that there was considerable premeditation about voter turnout, and that it would be high. It had to be high. I thought so. It would be high because so many Guyanese were dissatisfied with their piece of the national economic pie. It would be higher than normal because some, maybe many, in the traditional 30% of voters that do not vote would come out and have their say. My expectations stood somewhere between the 80-85% range.

Just from the numbers, it seems that nothing changed in the last 20 years. That 69-72% voter window is apparently frozen stiff. Could I/we take it for granted that 20-30% of the genuinely eligible voters in this country will continue to stay put? They did this year. That is, comfort themselves with their disinterest, then sit back and chortle over leadership lapses, and broken political promises. See! That was expected. That is why I am never going to vote. Rather deliberately, I am not incorporating into this presentation, how much the PPP did, what the PNC and AFC did or didn’t do, and where WIN capitalized by being the right presence at the right time in some of the right places. Today, the sole objective is to look at the voter turnout numbers, use a reasonable voter list as basis, and read what the two when put side-by-side say. They say that voter turnout wasn’t low, but the old norm.

In parting, I leave a thought for my fellow Guyanese to ponder. Could it be that 70% is100%, i.e., the whole voter list, the real one, with very few voters staying home?