 Ambassador Page has served as the first U.S. ambassador to South Sudan, also as a special representative to the U.N. Secretary General for Justice Support in Haiti, and so has a lot of topical and regional expertise relevant to today's discussion of election monitoring Indiana. So if I could, Ambassador Page, I'll turn over to you to introduce our guests. Thank you very much, John. It's really a delight to be here today and to introduce everyone. We are going to be talking about the elections in Guiana and how three different organizations observed those elections from the very early days of when it was determined necessary that an election needed to take place, all the way to the contestation of the counting of the ballots and then what is going on right now. So it is with great pleasure that I first will introduce Mr. Jason Carter. He is the chairman of the Carter Center Board of Trustees and a partner at the law firm of Bondurant, Nixon and Elmore LLP in Atlanta, Georgia, where he represents clients in high stakes business litigation. He is also the grandson of the Carter Center's founders, former President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalind Carter. And he's been intricately involved in the Carter Center's programs for 20 years, working to advance peace and health across the globe. He has also, he also co-led this particular electoral observation mission to Guiana, which I also participated on and had the first opportunity to meet Mr. Carter in person. And we're just delighted that you are able to be with us today. Next we have Ms. Fern Narciss Scope. She is the Chief Elections Officer of the Elections and Boundaries Commission of Trinidad and Tobago. She's representing CARICOM, which is the Caribbean community, which is a regional grouping of the Caribbean countries. I'm not going to name all of them, there are many, but if you do want to list, I can provide that for you. Ms. Narciss Scope, like our two other panelists, is also a lawyer. She graduated from the University of the West Indies in Cave Hill and St. Augustine campuses, and her wide and varied experience includes positions as legal counsel, corporate secretary at several state enterprises, and as legal officer at one of Trinidad and Tobago's government ministries. She specializes in public corporate governance, public administrative law, and governmental procedures and practices. And finally we have Ms. Pauline Chase. She is the Secretary of the Bar Association of Guiana, a position to which she has been elected for the past four years. I do have to tell this one tale on her because I got to know her a little bit well, a little bit while I was in Guiana. And she graduated from high school and started university at the age of 15. So I'm just sitting back here humbled. And after high school, she has now been practicing law for 20 years. And she is a senior partner at the law firm of Ashton Chase Associates. Her wide civil civil practice includes litigation before the various courts in Guiana in areas of law such as family, labor, constitution, and commerce. So without further ado, we will start with Mr. Carter and it's again, he will give a little bit of an overview of just the background very briefly about Guiana and then each of the speakers will talk for a few minutes in order about what they, the role that they played in observing Guiana's elections in 2020. All right, Mr. Carter, over to you. Thank you so much, Ambassador Page, who I generally refer to as Susan. I appreciate you being here. I'm excited about your new role there at the University of Michigan. And if there's a couple of things, I will get into it, but I'm honored to be here with Ms. Narcissus Scope and Ms. Chase. And I will say that one of the things that I have learned in the last several years, getting involved in Guyanese politics and Caribbean politics, there's a lot of legal maneuvering. There are a lot of lawsuits. And I have spent a lot of time listening to people in court. And I think everyone who's listening today to the two of these women speak will realize just how great it is to have a Caribbean lawyer because it nothing sounds better in making a legal argument than this group of people. And I think you guys will appreciate that when we come to it. But Guiana is in the Caribbean. It is also in South America, for those of you who are new to the study of Guiana. And it has been, for many years, has a very interesting history among other things. Its population is very diverse racially. There is a large Afro-Guyanese population and a very large Indo-Guyanese population. And then, of course, a variety of other groups that are mixed in in a host of ways, including Amerindian population in sort of the northern, excuse me, the southern part of Guiana. And that racial diversity over time and given the various different aspects of its post-colonial history has led to a real racial polarization for the most part among the political parties. If that sounds familiar to the Americans here, you'll know what I mean. And so in that context, there was a period of time and Pauline will be able to talk in more depth, obviously, having grown up in Guiana and being the true expert. But just sort of as an overview, the Carter Center has been involved since 1990. There was a very long period of time where a single party ruled Guiana. There was then a series of sort of democratic transitions that occurred, beginning really in 1990, where a new group came into power. That group then stayed in power for a very long time. The Carter Center came back, observed another election for another transfer of power. And then as it's moved forward, the Carter Center itself has observed elections in 110 different elections since 1989, including 39 countries. But Guiana we have been to on multiple occasions and have been integrally involved in some of the real reforms that Guiana has and still needs, frankly. And one of the issues in Guiana, as I mentioned, you have racial polarization among the political parties. And you also have really a winner-take-all system so that if one political party wins, the other group of people or the people associated with the other political party feel very left out. And there is a huge amount of power concentrated in the president and in their parliamentary system. And so what has happened and what happened to trigger this most recent election is that the political party that was in power, which was really an alliance for one of the first that they've had between a predominantly Afro-Guyanese party and a relatively small Indo-Guyanese party, that coalition government was in power with a very slim majority in the parliament. And what happened is that last year there was a vote of no confidence in the government. That vote of no confidence involved a single member of the parliament leaving the coalition and voting along with the opposition in order to force, in essence, a dissolution of the government. Now that triggered months and months of legal maneuvering, as I mentioned. There were a huge number of legal cases. They were argued in a variety of contexts. And one of the things that would be interesting is that Guyana is a part of the Caribbean Court of Justice, which is something that is not in Guyana, but is still the highest court of Guyana, which again, others can talk about more later. But as that process unfolded, the Constitution required an election be held because of the vote of no confidence. And so there was months and months of legal maneuvering. The Carter Center, including me, were actually involved very early on in trying to broker a various different set of compromises and in particular questions about how to conduct the election, just like in the United States. There were serious questions about voter registration practices. What was the best and most appropriate way to register those voters? What was the state of the voter list? How were they going to ensure that people who were overseas, but Guyanese citizens would be able to come home and vote a huge number of issues that were laid out. So eventually the election was scheduled. The Carter Center was invited to come and participate as international observers in that election. And as I mentioned, the Carter Center has done that 110 times since 1989 in many, many countries. But in addition to the Carter Center, there were a number of other both international organizations, regional organizations, and then domestic observers who were participating in that election. And Pauline and Ms. Narciss Scope, Ms. Narciss Scope, again, from CARICOM represents the most important regional body that sent an observation mission, and it's incredibly important that that regional those regional leaders are incredibly important to Guyana. And then, of course, Pauline represents the Bar Association in Guyana, which was a neutral group that was also observing the election similar to we would have observers looking here in the United States. And so all of that to say that it was a very well observed election. And it was one in which there were a host of sort of issues on election day or a host of small issues. And then at the end, in essence, during the tabulation process for the largest county, which is the largest region, as they call it in Guyana, there was a serious breach of transparency during which the the Election Commission stopped counting in a transparent way the ballots that had been cast in that particular area and began announcing results without having transparently concluded that count. This caused all of the international observers, many of the regional observers, many of the domestic observers to sound the alarm, including the Carter Center. We had multiple press conferences and statements about this irregularity and the lack of transparency and the and the and the resulting lack of confidence and in the in the result, the lack of credibility in the result. And so this was a fascinating election that then triggered. That was literally the week before the United States shut down because of the coronavirus. So it was in early March of this year. And so coupled with the coronavirus's complications, Guyana then began and carried out a very complicated set of recounts and legal wrangling that ultimately resulted in a president from the opposition party being sworn in recently. And and obviously, Miss Chase, who I keep calling Pauline and I apologize, Pauline. We've known each other for a while. You call me Jason for sure. That we can talk more about. But that is that is what we're looking at a country that has extreme polarization with respect to race, that has a complicated history of recriminations, that has a winter takeoff system where the side that loses feels like they're very much left out. And that kind of heightened awareness is something that I think Americans can feel right now. And so it's a very interesting process to look and think about what happens, how an election, what a major irregularity looks like, and then how the political parties through the courts and otherwise have come together to deal with a series of constitutional crises. So I'm looking forward to the discussion. And it's nice to be here again. Thank you, Ambassador Page. Great. Thank you very much. All of us know each other, so it is a little odd that we're all calling each other by our formal names. But I want to be respectful. Please do panelists. Feel free to call me by my first name, Susan, which is what we all call each other by our first names. But I do want to be respectful and since the students are here, I don't want to make it super casual. And let me just say that we will take questions from the audience. So once everyone finishes, they're kind of opening remarks. We will get to the questions because I think as Mr. Carter mentioned, one of the things that is that we're looking at is how things might play out for elections in the United States and if there might be similarities. So I know that that will come up. And one of the issues that arose early on in the Guiana process was even when elections would be scheduled. And because of all of the debate and court cases and arguments, even that was pushed off quite late. And that also began a process of sort of maybe not tainting the process, but making people unafraid about whether or not the results would, in fact, be credible. So next, let me turn to Ms. Narciss Scope. And she is representing CARICOM. And again, you know, the regional communities are based on economic integration and trying to make sure that regional organizations come together and promote a common, a common foreign policy, a common unity of effort, especially economically. So Ms. Narciss Scope. Good morning, everyone. So from my perspective, first, let me talk a little bit about CARICOM. So CARICOM is really a grouping of 20 countries, 15 member states and five associate members. It is home to approximately 16 million citizens, 60 percent of which are under the age of 30. So we have a very young population in the Caribbean region. It stretches from the Bahamas in the north to Suriname and Guyana in South America, as well as includes Belize in Central America. And I am representing my participation in the mission was that of representing Trinidad and Tobago, a twin island republic that is a part of CARICOM. And to your students, you would know Trinidad and Tobago because we have contributed to Carnival and Calypso and Soka. So if you know that music, it all comes from my country and the Caribbean region. So CARICOM came into being in 1973. And since then, it really was an economic and continues to be an economic and social partnership. And one of the things about CARICOM is that we are countries, the countries of CARICOM, we share a common heritage in that we've all moved from colonialism into self-government, some form of self-government. And that colonialism has, by and large, majorly been under the British. So that you find that from a lower perspective, a Commonwealth perspective, and I think Pauline, if I can call you Pauline, Pauline will speak more to that when she speaks, but in terms of what we share as a region, we do have very similar legislative backgrounds. And so in every country, you will see that we, the legislative process for elections is governed by a large, by a representation of the People's Act. That's what the legislation is called. And all the islands or countries share that legislation in various formats, but very, very similar. So in terms of CARICOM, we, CARICOM itself started election observer missions in 2000. So it's really, they've only been in the business for just about 20 years. And the first missions that CARICOM did was to Haiti and Suriname, the general elections that both countries had in that year. But since 2000 to now, the CARICOM has mounted over 50 election observer missions. Now, in terms of the missions themselves, the missions tend to be short missions we generally would go in for just about 10 days. And it's in three phases. You look at the pre-election period, the election day itself, and then the post-election period. So in terms of the Guyana context, the chief of mission, and that's the person who is the head of mission, that person is selected from amongst the nominees from the various countries who would have submitted a nominee to participate in the election. And the nominees tend to be persons who have election experience or senior electoral officials, such as myself. So that in the case of the Guyana election, the head of mission is actually the chair, person for the Saint Lucia Elections Commission, the island of Saint Lucia. And so she was the head of mission and the head of mission forms an advanced party. So they tend to go in in the early 10 day period and they would meet with various stakeholders in the election process. So political parties, both in combat and opposition parties, NGOs, civil society, the police service, all the arms that would be interested in the election and its outcome. All those interested parties that advanced party would meet with with a view to finding a determination of the pre-election atmosphere and noting whatever are the concerns of all these various very important bodies in the organization in the country. Thereafter that the remaining team members would come in and we would visit one of the primary and most important of entities that we visit would be that electoral management body in the respect in the respective country. So in this case, Guyana's Elections Commission or otherwise known as GCOM. So we would have visited there to ascertain how ready GCOM was for the election. So we had several meetings with GCOM in that regard to determine their readiness. And of course, at the time in the lead up to the second of March, they were ready or claimed to be ready. All the activities had been, you know, everything that had been needed to be done had been done by that time. And so we also, of course, we had deployed on election day and we visit polling stations. So in the context of Guyana, they had just about I think it was over 2,000 polling stations and we visited three hundred and sixty out of those two thousand plus polling stations. So it's it's a percentage of the polling stations that you are able to visit. Guyana is a vast country, ten regions. And so we did. I think it was it was probably four or five of the regions we were able to deploy team members to visit. Of course, different terrain across Guyana, urban, rural, very rural in some in some in some areas. So it's it's it's difficult. It would have it would have been difficult to do all, you know, a larger percentage of the polling stations. But we did do just about three hundred and sixty polling stations. And so I'm looking at the opening of the poll, the conduct of the poll itself and close of all procedures. And of course, the whole tabulation and preparation of statement of the poll are all these these these activities form part of the election day procedures. And so we would have examined that. We would have spoken to electors as they come into these to the stations ascertaining that that, you know, that information we looked at a number of things spoke, the chief of mission would have spoken with the media and given a press release and things like that. So and then, of course, you have post election where you look at in well, in Guyana's case, because their results have to be tabulated. And it does take some time to do that because of the vastness of the country. We would have stayed a few days observing that tabulation process and would have been there when things started to go awry in relation to the you know, the tabulation of the results for region four. And there after that, we played what I would say a very unique role in terms of of having or working towards the final outcome and alleviating the situation. And so the head of Carrie come at a time who was Prime Minister Mia Motley together with my Prime Minister, Dr. Keith Rowley and the Prime Minister of Sylvins. No, I think it was Grenada, Dr. Mitchell. They led that delegation, visited Guyana and got agreement between the former prime the former prime minister and then leader of the opposition to have a high level delegation come in and supervise what was supposed to be a recount of region four. And eventually became a recount or count of all 10 regions. It did take some time for the the parameters of the high level team to be determined when the first high level team went in. There was a litigation filed against the team and so on. And that took its course. But the end result of that is a second high level delegation went in and they define the scope. They were able to define the scope of what that team was supposed to do or scrutinize or supervise. I mean, these these are terms, you know, as as as Mr. Carter said, this is where the law the lawyering comes in and and one's interpretation of what's scrutiny versus supervise and so on. All of those things became issues before the court, but it was decided eventually what the ambit or the terms of reference of that high level delegation would be. And so a second team went in led by Cynthia Barajiles, who is a senior lecturer at the University of the West Indies in Cave Hill campus. And she together with a commissioner, a sitting commissioner from the Antigone Barbuta Commission, as well as I think he's the deputy chief elections officer from St. Vincent, the three of them took on the task of scrutinizing what that recount process for the 10 regions. It took a few weeks. Well, but the end result was a report that highlighted several inconsistencies and and and the fact that the what who was the opposition party at the time. So the opposition party emerging as the well, the ruling government. And that's not to say that there was some time between the laying of the report and the eventual swearing in of the government. There was some doing and throwing there from a legal perspective. People not accepting the report. The chief elections officer in in G come doing some very different doing some very, very, very, very, taking a different approach and and and seemingly. While we are there, OK, she's back. OK, maybe from we'll try to get back to you. I think your connection is perhaps a little bit unstable. But I think she has laid out very well what some of the challenges were. And on top of this, we have to remember that by this point, all countries had suspended flights. And so even for this team to go back in high level as they were, then there were objections from the G come to what they had to do in order to to to enter the country because of the coronavirus. So let me now just turn quickly to to Pauline to Ms. Chase and representing the Bar Association that both observed the elections, but also had members who were arguing the cases as well as they came up for litigation. So over to you. Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Page. Can you hear me? Am I am I good? Great. OK, perfect. Thank you is such a delight to be with you and everyone this morning. Thank you again for having me. Thank you to the University of Michigan for the kind invitation to be part of the panel discussion this morning. The last time I saw Ambassador Page and Mr. Carter, Jason, as I like to call it, we were in circumstances. I believe none of us would have wished to be under if we had a choice. So I must say it is a distinct pleasure to see them this morning under different circumstances. I have been asked to give a brief opening remarks. And with that, I hope to not only lay out the work of the Bar Association, but to also convince you that not all lawyers are, as we say in long winded, which means that for both. I know Jason was working on his guy and he's part of the unswelded was here. I don't know if he picked up that one. Anyway, I will just try to give a brief overview of the work of the Bar Association. The speakers before me have laid out it quite well and in quite good detail, I think, to provide for discussion the circumstances surrounding the election. So it's made my work a little bit easier. I think they're at least Jason is a defacto guy needs by now. So as mentioned, I am the secretary of the Bar Association of Ghana or the Ghana Bar Association, as we were also called the Bar Association of Ghana, as is the American Bar Association is a voluntary membership association comprising of attorneys at law admitted to practice in Ghana. It is the recognized body representing the interests of attorneys at law in Ghana. The Bar Association has been involved in elections and election process in Ghana for quite some time, dating back to as far as the 1970s in varying capacities and for varying reasons. The association has expressed mandate under its rules to uphold the rule of law, a mandate which we take quite seriously. It is our view that any threat to democracy, any subversion of free and fair elections is a threat to the rule of law. The Bar Association has a honourable record, a historical record when it comes to elections in democracy in Ghana. We served an important and leading role as a civil society organisation in the 1970s, 80s and 90s for the return of free and fair elections in Ghana, a process of which we were robbed from 1964 to 1992 when we suffered what is now widely accepted as ring elections under the then PNC government. We were able to regain free and fair elections not only by the work of the Bar Association and other such organisations, but also through the instrumental work of the Cartes Centre and former President Jimmy Carter himself, to whom guineas owe tremendous gratitude. I don't think we can ever, ever repeat for what President Carter did for us in 1992. The Bar Association comprising of independent attorneys that law of varying backgrounds served and we continue to serve an important role in society. Generally, when lawyers talk, more so as a body, because as you can imagine, it would be difficult to get more than one attorney to agree on anything. People listen, people listen when attorneys speak up, not withstanding the lawyer jokes, or at least so we tell ourselves. Now, the role of the Bar Association in the observation of the 2020 elections did not start on election day, March 2nd, 2020, or even nomination day, which was January 10th, 2020, which is the usual official starting point for election observation missions. We like to think we were there from the beginning. You were there from the beginning and we're still here in the post-election period. The well documented shenanigans and which you would have heard of already this morning surrounding the 2020 general and regional elections in Guyana did not start on March 2nd, or even with the passage of the no confidence more to which Jason referred, which was passed on December 21, 2018. It started years before in about 2016, with the selection and appointment of the all powerful chairman of the Ghani Elections Commission, Chikam. This is when the concern and the alarm bells started to ring and sound in Guyana. After somewhat public row and rejection by the president of the list of persons from whom to choose a superior leader opposition and is mandated by Article one, six to one of the Constitution, and that provision was amended to provide for what we call the Carter formula for the selection of the chairman. So before the selection of the chairman was done by the president in his sole discretion, after the 92 election and some consultation it was viewed that that was not a good process and it should be changed. So it was changed to be a more consultative process where the president would choose from a list supplied by the leader of the opposition. That was not being done for in about 2016, when the then chairperson signaled his intention to resign. So a private citizen, Marcel Gaskin, approached the court in 2017 for an interpretation of that article in the Constitution. And that is what set all the following court matters and court cases in action. The Bar Association joined these proceedings, the proceedings filed by Marcel Gaskin, and we did so amicus. That means as a friend of the court, we took no side. We were there just to offer the court support and assistance if we could be. And it was a move for which we were commended by the Honorable Chief Justice acting in her judgment, her written judgment. Now, leading up to the 2020 elections, the Bar Association played a very active role of advocacy through the release of statements, meeting with other local civil society organizations, international bodies, lending support to those organizations. And as mentioned, joining in court proceedings by the Declaration of Results on August 2nd, 2020, there were 10 matters filed in court, touching and concerning the elections and involving the High Court, the Full Court, the Court of Appeal and the Caribbean Court of Justice. The law and lawyers took center stage. After comments started to appear in the media by the then government and persons aligned with that government, including an attorney at law, questioning the legality and effect of the no confidence motion which was passed in the National Assembly. The Bar Association released a statement unequivocally rejecting those contentions or any contention that the motion was not valid and lawfully passed for any reason. It was a strong statement and a statement for which we were criticized, of course, but we were vindicated by the Court, the Caribbean Court of Justice, when they so far. Now, after all the court challenges, elections were finally proclaimed by the president in October 2019, notably outside of the constitutionally mandated three month period for the passage of the no confidence motion. So by the Constitution Article 106, elections should have been held within three months of the day to passing of the no confidence motion. As you can see, that was not done. We did not have elections until March 2nd, 2020. It should have been held by March 21st, 2019. So just about a year later application. The Bar Association was accredited as a local observer of the 2020 general and regional elections. The Association had been previously involved in election observation independently and through the Electoral Assistance Bureau, which was founded in June 1991 and of which the Bar Association was the founder. However, due to funding and other issues, the EAB was not in a position to observe the 2020 elections. And it was therefore decided that due to our continuous standing and involvement, the Bar Association would independently seek accreditation which it so did and was granted. We observe 10 districts. Sorry, we observe three districts of the 10 electoral districts. Gann is split up into 10 electoral districts. And as Fern mentioned, Gann is a vast country. Some areas are only accessible by plane, some by boat. So we are a big country. We chose those three regions four, five and six because we thought those would be the most contentious and most likely to give rise to issues. And therefore focus our attention on those districts. Our team comprised of about 20 attorneys of law who were all volunteers. We collaborated with other civil society organizations for training and relied on each other for logistical support that may be needed on election day. Some of our members also had previous observer experience and assisted with training and other such matters. Training ensured that we understood the system, what was to take place, when and how. And that we understood our role and rights as observers. There was no training, however, to prepare us for what ensued after March 2nd, 2020. And I will say that quite, I would admit to that. The sense in factions of the country leading up to the elections were that it would be great. How? No one knew or could seem to articulate articulate but the sense remained something was afoot. This was the first election of which the PNC had control after being ousted from power in 1992 after the return of free and fair elections. Elections began by their nature and history polarizing with the two main political giants, the PPP and PNC, commanding the landscape. The history goes as far back as 1955. And I hope you'll get into more discussion on it. I wouldn't deal with it right now. Tensions are high, racial tensions are high. Neutrality and unfamiliar description as actions are seen through a political lens. It is either you're with us or you're against us. Between March 2nd and August 2nd, 2020, the Bar Association had caused to speak through the release of statements on six occasions. Three occasions alone in July with regard to conduct. By that time, census had become even more heightened than attacks on the judiciary. Attorneys-at-law were taken center stage on both sides, diplomats and generally persons in the execution of their professional duties had reached unacceptable levels. This, of course, in itself placed us on their attack from government and governmental-aligned sources. We as also diplomats are the local and international observers, judicial officers, attorneys-at-law and their individual capacities and our members. And persons not following the narrative were seen as partisan and biased. There was even a show that came over on Facebook in the evenings and it always ended with good night to everyone, except someone in particular. So one night it was good night to everyone, except Ambassador of America. One night it was good night to everyone, except the Geyana Bar Association. We took it as a compliment. Fortunately, lawyers have thick skins and our guide is on only the rule of law and where the chips fall, well, they fall. We take comfort that we have always stood on the right side of the law and in good company, at all times executing our mandate to uphold the rule of law. And I look forward to a very vibrant discussion. I hope I've given you some food for thought and some information that you can use. And thank you and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you very much, Pauline, Fern and Jason. These were excellent opening remarks and comments. I would just note especially that the elections election day took place on March 2nd of 2020 and the president was not sworn in until three months later. So and even now there are challenges that are still ongoing and I think Pauline will get to that. But I think you wanted to add something. Go ahead, Pauline. No, I was saying it was five months, not three months. Oh, five months. Sorry. Sorry. Election day was on March 2nd and the president was sworn in on August 2nd. Yes, sorry. My mistake. Exactly. Thank you. We don't want to rob them the time. No, but, you know, what is I think I think one of the big questions that will come up and you just raised this is the bias that can be that people can be accused of. So I want to get to the students question, but I will take my my my mediator, my moderator role permission and ask that first question. If each of you could just briefly say how that played out? Did you feel used or abused by being an election observer either from the region for an international observer from outside, i.e. the Carter Center or from the Bar Association and what you witness because there were a zillion observers? I mean, this was the election rooms where the counting was going on. I mean, we're really full and they actually had to limit the number of of accredited observers who could be in the counting room at any one time because there were so many organizations that were part of it. So if you could just speak briefly about, you know, what you saw or how you felt from your organization standpoint about perhaps being targeted or, as we know, in some cases, being asked to leave, being kind of not admitted in. How was that? Let's start with Jason. Sure. Thank you so much. And number one, just for Ms. Narcissope's benefit, we as you got cut off, we did mention the fact that CARICOM was as you were just about to say, sort of the crucial and only observers that were allowed in at the end. And I think that role that CARICOM played is important on this question of sort of neutrality and bias. I mean, you know, we all, if you live in Michigan, you know, in the United States or wherever you are at home, you know, we all are aware that things become highly politicized and when it's a very polarized environment, if you tell something that is, you know, your version of the facts, people who are just who, for whom that's not a good fact, are going to accuse you of bias, right? There's a huge level of of polarization and attacks. And Ms. Chase put it very well that, you know, that on some level, you take it as a badge of honor that the Carter Center itself, obviously, being an outside organization is helpful. We don't have a history of being affiliated with one side or the other. We don't stay in the community in ways that people can then use whatever history we have as evidence of bias. As Ms. Chase mentioned, the Carter Center observed an election. The PNC in Guyana is, in many ways, the party of the Afro-Gyanese community. At least that's the politically polarized sort of majority within that political party. And that party was in power for many years and the Carter Center came and observed an election that transferred power from the PNC to the PPP, which is the opposition party. We then came back and observed an election that transferred power from the PPP to the PNC, right? So we've been there for these transitions in power in both ways over time. Nonetheless, we were certainly accused of bias. And one of the reasons that it's so difficult, for example, for the Carter Center or any other organization group to come to the United States to start talking and observing elections is because of the highly polarized nature of both our political discourse and our media coverage that makes it difficult, frankly, to come in and provide neutral analysis of election issues because every fact on an election, every every interpretation of the law is going to have a winner and a loser, at least in some context. And that raises questions of bias. But it's something that we try to confront all the time in every single election that we have observed. And it is a larger and smaller issue over time. But I think ultimately, particularly with respect to the PNC government, the CARACOM officials in delegation really had the most credibility with that political party and and and had credibility across the board. And so it became very, very important that they were there at the end of the day to to to really supervise or scrutinize or whatever the appropriate legal term is for. Thanks. So maybe because we're going to give Ms. Narciss Scope the last word since CARACOM is the one who at the end of the day was sort of the last body standing to to have a say. So, Ms. Chase, why don't we turn to you again? I think because the Bar Association had been so engaged as lawyers, as a body of lawyers. How was it for you all, given, you know, what you saw and what was being played out? Thank you. So we had a really unique role because we, as you said, were a body of lawyers and we were involved as an association and our members involved in the litigation on both sides. And we also had the unique perspective that we were local observers. So with local observers comes familiarity and that is a double-edged sword. So it works both ways. It has its advantages and it has its its disadvantages. So we were accused of bias, but as I said, it was just because the environment was so heightened and so tense. I mean, this was called the mother of all elections. Giana is on the verge of being an oil producer. So that when that backdrop also in these elections, were just all eyes were on these elections. And it was just a very tight and tense situation. So we did not let it affect us. As I said, lawyers have thick skins and we took comfort in the fact that we were on all all times on the side of the rule of law and we weren't good company because, fortunately, we were not the only ones staying in and it was so important to have observer missions of varying backgrounds. So you had the local observers and you had the international observers and they were all in tangent international and local observers. So as a body, as a grouping of observers, then we were able to protect each other, even if it was an unspoken protection, but we were able to move in tandem because we were all seeing the same thing. We were all experiencing the same thing. There was no sugarcoating. There was nothing subversive or perverse about it. So it did not affect our work and the positions that we took. So yes, there were allegations of bias, but there are allegations of bias against everyone who was not taking a particular narrative, which, I mean, truthfully, just could not be taken if you experienced what you experienced and you saw and you observed what you observed. So it does play out. And as I said, familiarity is a double edged sword. So we were not immune from it, but we did not allow it to affect us and the work with which we undertook to do, we were mandated to do. That's good. So let's turn back to Mrs. Narciss Scope because I think, you know, that perspective, I think it's easier sometimes to be called out when you really are alone, when you're kind of that outlier organization, body entity that is saying, no, everything was perfect or everything was not good, but you're standing independently. In this case, I think Ms. Chase is right, that I think everyone had really the benefit of being united in what was seen because it was so brazen. But let me turn to you now for the final word before we open it up to questions from our listeners. How was it from the CARICOM perspective because your organization really did stand up and took a very firm stance with the government and the election's body, which was difficult to do because, I mean, we've all noted the stakes were so high. Well, CARICOM's election observer missions generally tend to be well accepted in the region. And that is because its components tend to be election management professionals. Yes, so that we have found that in any country that CARICOM enters for election observer missions, there tends to be a certain level of acceptance and welcoming of the CARICOM observer teams. But what subsequently transpired in Guyana? I mean, none of us could have expected that things would play out in the manner that it did. And that observer team, we did our work. That first team, that team for the March 2nd election, we would have done our work looking at the atmosphere and the processes in relation to Guyana's legislation. And to the unseeing eye, all things are paid to be above board. But somehow in the tabulation process, that is when things went awry, you know, things have started to go awry and revealed that other things had happened. You know, the high level team, the first high level team that was sent in by Prime Minister Motley, of which I was initially a member, was meant, met with a certain level of suspicion and aggression because by then things had deteriorated. I think there was such public distress in what had transpired. But there was, I think there was a general consensus that G-COM, the public confidence and distress in G-COM, had so eroded that there was a need for somebody or entity to supervise, and I use that word, the recount process. And as Mayor Motley was able to agree to get the former Prime Minister and the opposition party to agree to carry G-COM. And perhaps because of the role that carry G-COM was not the first time, I think I understand in the 1990s, carry G-COM had played a similar role for a previous election that Guyana had had. So they were able to agree that carry G-COM would play that well, there was that mediation that Prime Minister Motley engaged in and then that's that subsequent supervising of the recount process. But there was a certain level of there was suspicion, allegations that were thrown, but I'll tell you something. One of the things about being an election management professional is that I think all of us in our respective countries, we are subjected to that. I mean, certainly Trinidad and Tobago had its election on the heels of Guyana's and as the CEO of TNT, I would have had my fair share or my baptism of fire, as I call it, in dealing with political parties and all sorts of allegations. So I think the participants in carry G-COM election observer missions because we are all involved in the election management. We are accustomed to, you know, at home, being being being the target of political parties and so on. And so that when even in Guyana, when we did encounter some of that, it did not cause us any real tribulation because, as I said, we are somewhat accustomed and and are able to do our work in that type of environment because that is the environment we all function in as it relates to election management anyway, you know? So I'm happy to say that what carry G-COM was able to do, and certainly as a chief elections officer in the business of elections for the last 10 years, it was the first time I had seen anything like what happened in Guyana from a professional perspective. So that for us as well, it was also an opportunity carry G-COM missions and opportunity for peer review as we look at the work that our respective countries are engaging in in election management and we learn from one another. And in this case, certainly what not to do, right? Certainly what not to do in, you know, and the need for the organization, how important public confidence and public trust is in an organization that is election management body and public trust and confidence is eroded, what that could do to a nation. I think that is one of the key learnings that came out of this entire Guyana experience, you know, that none of us would want to be in that situation, you know, especially as someone working for an election management body, that erosion of public distrust really, really can toward the whole essence of democracy. And I think that for me was one of the great takeaways of the whole Guyana experience. Mr. Carter, I think you wanted to add something. I just want to say, I mean, the credibility of the way that she just put it is exactly right. When the election system itself loses credibility, you have a really serious problem. It's very hard to get it back. It takes a lot of different stakeholders to come together and to say we're going to we're going to trust in this system again. And it is just fundamentally a very difficult situation. And again, the Carter Center has confronted that in other countries many, many times. And part of what we've been able to do is to add some credibility to the process by beginning at the very beginning. And perhaps, you know, answering the student question that at least was put out at the beginning is a way to do this. I don't want to jump ahead, but that that credibility is just so important. I just wanted to amplify and echo what what Ms. Narcissus said for sure. Yeah, great. All right. Well, I am going to let our participants ask questions. Maybe I would start actually with asking you to raise your hand. And of course, if, John, Professor Chichurri, if you have anything you would like to ask as well, but let's see if the students can raise their hands first. And there's also one good question in the chat. I thought that I was trying to ask that or answer that, but OK, why don't we go ahead? Sylvia, if you're still on, would you like to ask that or amplify exactly your comment? Sylvia is on mute if she is talking. All right, thank you. Forget to unmute myself. I had a good friend who was an international observer at an important election in Latin America. And his feelings about what he had done were mixed because he was, of course, honored to have been invited as an international observer. And he did not see any problems in the particular setting in which he was asked to observe. But he said, but that doesn't mean that there weren't things happening in other places. And perhaps our invitation as an international observer was a way of legitimating an election that, you know, perhaps had some fraud, some fraud associated with it. And it was a way of covering that up. So I was just wondering, since some of you guys have been international observers, how you felt about that, you know, the difference between the little space that you're asked to oversee and what could be happening elsewhere and how you get used in the process. So may I take this one? Yeah, please. So I think, you know, the Carter Center, as I said, has sort of since 1989 in many ways really created the space of election observation in these ways and especially international election observation. And and now it is it is a very robust, you know, international space that that includes perhaps the most effectively the examples of CARICOM in this instance. But there's regional bodies and the European Union and others, the Commonwealth that all participate in a huge in a huge way. But the fundamental sort of aspect of international observation is it begins really with a long process. And the Carter Center, if we go in, we're going to have long term observers that will be there for months, often in advance of an election. Certainly many, many weeks to go and observe each aspect of the process. And so I think that, you know, the question of credibility is an important one and the value of international observers is very, very high in many places where the internal credibility has been questioned. And the ability of international observers to actually locate and find issues is really high, in part because you observe each aspect of the process and you have to ensure that the process itself has sufficient transparency, has sufficient credibility so that once the international observers get to election day, for example, like your friend, Sylvia, who was on a short term election day observation mission, once they get to the day, we'll know that there are processes in place, for example, for party observers of the various different parties to all be present in every single precinct. In Guyana, for example, there was for the most part, there were party observers from both of the two main political parties in every single precinct. You know, certainly 99%. And so if you're talking about international observers being able to observe election day issues, that can be complicated. But when you couple that with the fact that we've got teams of international observers from many, many places that work together, we had many meetings with CARICOM, many meetings with the EU and Commonwealth and all of the international observers, plus meetings with the domestic observers and the political parties, you're talking about a process that gets put into place that then has credibility because the process itself is self-sustaining. And so I think it has real value to have international observers calm, validate the process that's being used, demonstrate so it's a people in a particular polarized environment why the process is using best practices or meets international standards for transparency, et cetera. And so I think it's very difficult, frankly, and this will hearten some of you about the American election. It's very difficult to quote steal an election on election day. It is very difficult. It requires it would be almost impossible to do it without detection. And so you'll have irregularities. But in order to really, truly affect the outcome of an election, there has to be systemic issues at play. Or as we saw in Guyana, a problem with tabulating the results, right? Because that's a point at which the entire system funnels into a single set of people. And so in Guyana, they started announcing results. The results look bad for the for the for one of the political parties. And so they stopped the counting process and just announced results that had nothing to do with it. And that tabulation process when they sought to certify those results was a real problem. So the counting and tabulation process is also something that either has transparency or it doesn't. But the international community's ability to see what's going on and to look at the system as a whole, I think it's really robust and it provides a lot of credibility. Thank you. Maybe just to to add, maybe any of you can take this, but, you know, there is kind of a checklist to a certain extent of what makes an election free and fair. And of course, that's not just Election Day. It's all of the things that lead up to Election Day. So Ms. Chase mentioned a number of the issues that had gone into even how the Election Commission is nominated and whether or not the the process of the vote of no confidence, whether that was object objected to Ms. Narciss Scope also mentioned that they look at the legislation. And I would just say that I know with the Carter Center, we also had the Carter Center also had a legal person on their long term observation team. And I was privileged to be able to actually watch some of the court hearings, which I found fascinating as a lawyer and just to see what the Constitution of both sides. But maybe one of you can talk a little bit about what you actually look at. What are the criteria going into elections that you look at to see what kind of playing field you're dealing with? If I might, when when one when we head into a caricum country, one of the things that I think I mentioned before, the advanced team that does is have meetings with various stakeholders. And while caricum missions tend to be short term missions, really just about 10 days or more, just a little more than 10 days, the purpose of meeting with the stakeholders, the election stakeholders is to ascertain from get a real sense of what the various important stakeholders feel about the election process going into election day. And that gives us a lot of a lot of important information. So the advanced team, in the case of Guyana, would have heard a lot of stories and concerns being expressed that distress of the system going into the election. That that was clear that there were issues. There had been issues with voter registration that the list could be bloated and things like that. So that while we do not have the benefit of a long term mission, that it does not prevent the some of the issues, the in country or host country issues, election issues coming to the fore by equal meetings on election day. Do we look and that that's where the focus now turns the actual legislation governing the election process. And you're looking for an adherence to procedure right, as I've said, that the procedures really are very similar in across the curriculum nations. We do not have a electrode electronic voting. Voting is manual in the in the true sense of the process. And so that there are procedures that that are required for opening of the poll to ensure transparency. You open the ballot box to make sure it's empty right before you you know you start polling and so on. Right. You have the presence of polling agents and these polling agents represent the political parties contesting the election in each polling station. And they all of these these are these are in built in systems and ensure transparency and accountability on on poll day. So what we are looking for on poll day is an adherence to the legislation and the procedures for the conduct of the poll because it is it is a deviation from that that that really would be the irregularities that Mr. Carter spoke of the election day irregularities that Mr. Carter spoke about. Right. So you're looking to ensure that that as far as humanly possible, the majority of your poll day staff right would be adhering to election procedures. So that gives you a sense that at least from a procedural perspective on the day, whether or not that had been correctly implemented. Right. But of course, as Mr. Carter has indicated, bringing an election, I wonder, I myself wonder, how is that even humanly possible? Because certainly not an election day. That is is a concerted effort and conspiracy of an extended period of time. Right. So that you cannot see it as as I think Sylvia indicated. It is not something her colleague, her friend indicated. It is not something that you could really see on the on election day, election day, looking for an adherence to procedures. And of course, in the counting of the of the ballots and the tabulation process, again, all of that is procedural. So it is that procedural impropriety that led us to where, you know, all that happened in in Guyana. So it's it's really everything is legislated from from the very inception, the how you register voters, how you delineate boundaries and how you conduct the election. All of that is legislated. So what you are really looking for in a true sense is to ensure that the election management body or whatever other body is responsible for some arm or aspect of the conduct of the election, they have followed procedure. And once you once you see that happening, I think it gives the election observer team short term or long term the ability to say that, you know, the election was credible and transparent and free and fair. Great. Thank you. I see only one other hand right now. So, Professor Torciari, I'll hand over the floor to you. Thanks. I wanted to pick up on a comment that Mr. Carter made earlier about the importance of media and spin in the aftermath of any electoral dispute. Certainly we're worried about that right now in the US. And I'd be very interested in your comments from the perspective of your respective organizations. What role did a media strategy play in your work? Did you anticipate that you would need not only to observe what was happening, but that you would need to translate that into a more even-handed coverage in the Guyanese media? I'll answer very briefly. And then I would be very interested to hear Pauline, who knows the media environment there better than we do. The Guiana almost has one newspaper for every citizen. I mean, it is a very robust media environment. Some of them are very, you know, skewed towards one political party or the other. So you're going to have a lot of information that gets out there. We really, for the most part, one of the big advantages that we have now is that we can go in many ways directly to the people, because we'll have a press conference. We'll post it on Twitter or on Facebook and people will go and hear what it is that we have to say. So we had an aggressive, I would say, communications plan that involved us just talking very, very directly to the Guyanese people. And so it would get covered in the media in the ways that it would get covered. But I think we were able in many ways. And certainly our most effective communication, we were able to go directly to the Guyanese people and have these discussions. And so it's crucially important, as you mentioned. And one of the things that the Carter Center has looked at, in addition to the traditional mainstream media that we see in the United States, and obviously everybody realizes is being joined, at least if not completely subsumed by the social media outlets that are out there. Those social media outlets and the fact that people get their news there is the subject of a huge amount of study that the Carter Center is engaging in. And I'll just say before concluding that it's not only in the United States that social media is driving many people's views and opinions of elections and of the credibility of their institutions, but it's everywhere. I mean, not just in Guyana, but even in Liberia, in West Africa, which is one of the poorest countries in the world, and it has very limited infrastructure in a host of ways. You're still talking about an election that was in many ways dominated from a media standpoint by social media. And so it is a new environment. There's pluses and minuses, but from our standpoint, as we analyze those digital threats to democracy on an ongoing basis, we also in Guyana at least really took advantage of that medium to go directly and have our statements made directly to the people. Before I let Ms. Chase answer as well, I just wanted to add one thing that I think it's important to note both in the Karakam region, the 20 bodies, the fact that Ms. Narcissop mentioned the youth, these are people who are very savvy with technology. And the same is true on the African continent where there's a massive youth bulge and they want the same opportunities, of course, that everybody wants jobs and opportunity to prosper. And they are much more clever at all of these kinds of new technologies than many of us who did not grow up with that. So it is definitely something to watch. And let me just let Ms. Chase add Pauline. Pauline, we were throwing it to you to talk about the media. Sorry. Oh, sorry. I think my connection just was just a bit unstable. Over to me now. So the media. Thank you. The media has played a very important, crucial role in the 2020 elections in Guyana. That is the short answer. We have come a long way historically. So in the 70s and 80s, the media also did play an important role, but there was also oppression of the media during that time because of foreign currency and other restrictions and other mechanisms. For instance, newsprint was difficult to get and was even banned at one point. So the printing of newspapers to get to get the news out and to get your views out where it was a difficult thing. But those that were able to do it did use it as a powerful tool at that time. Fast forward to 2020. We now have an open economy. We have the internet and not only did the mainstream media, which is the print TV and news play an important role, but also as Jason touch, social media played an important role and not a structured social media. So it was not necessarily a news outlet through social media, but just someone being able to have their phone in the tabulation center and broadcasting what was going on. So people were able on the outside to see in real and lifetime because the media were not allowed in the tabulation center. The tabulation, I'm saying the tabulation center, there were actually 10 tabulation centers. The hotspot was region was district four, the one in Georgetown, which is the most populated. It's our city. The media was not allowed in that building. They were actually treated quite, quite horribly. They had to stay outside. They had to wait for persons to go outside to speak with them. They did not have access, but to their benefit and to their credit, they did not have access to the tabulation center. So they did not have access to the tabulation center, but they actually stood all the insult that was hurled at them with the bad treatment and they did carry the news. They spoke to both sides. I think they did a good job in trying to get the message out. Our statements, we've always had cooperative media. They've always been very friendly to us in carrying our statements and our views. And as Jason mentioned, they were very friendly to us. They were very friendly to us. They were very friendly to us. They carried his views too, but not only mainstream media, but I think more so than mainstream media, social media, the opening of the internet and having that direct contact, two persons and two persons around the world. Because it wouldn't only be persons in Guyana. So I had family and friends from as far as Germany and Africa calling me and texting me about what was going. But they did do a good job and I would say more social media and access to social media was even more important. I hope I answered your question. If not, feel free to give me a follow up question. Perfect. No, thank you so much. Well, we are with really about one minute left. So I have not asked the question that I think everyone wants to know if in literally 10 seconds, what is the most important thing each of the three of you believe to watch for in the US elections in less than a month? Jason, we'll start with you. The most important thing is, is how we all, we need to watch and be careful in the way that we all talk on social media and in the mainstream media about what's going to impact quote the election and to make sure that we are not calling into question the integrity of the election unless there's truly something big that's going on. And I think we've got to be careful to separate out issues that are important and that could impact or undermine the credibility of the election from issues that are just the stuff that happens in elections as good as people are at administering them. You know, you got to be careful in the way that we talk about it because undermining that credibility really, really is a tough thing to come back for. Thank you. Ms. Narciss Scope. I think I want to agree with Mr. Carter that the US has very robust election management systems, slightly different in across the states, but very robust nonetheless. And I think the interest in the election is keen. I am anticipating COVID-19 aside, a strong election turnout and so certainly from the curriculum perspective we are looking, it is a pity that we will not be able to mount or participate in an observable mission in the US. There's a lot of learning that can be gauged from visiting the US for the purpose of the election, but I see strong and very robust election management processes across the various states. And I expect a very high, one needs to be able to decipher this media spin that will create that distrust as opposed to, you know, whether something, there's a reality and a need to be actually be concerned. So I think I believe that one could reasonably anticipate a free and fair election as is the history of the US in the election management. Thank you very much. Very quickly, Ms. Chase. In 10 seconds, protect your process. It is the most important thing that you have. Our Guyanese have lived the erosion of the system. We've lived it since 1964, and we continue to live it in various means. As Jason mentioned, the confidence in the system. So if third world countries really have, say in first world matters, but if I could, I would say protect your system. You have a good system. It's a robust system we all do. And what is our saving grace is the protection of that system. So be vigilant and protect the system. I want to thank the three of you very much. Those are very powerful words to end on. Protect your system and be vigilant. Be careful about the words that we speak. I think all of that is really critical, critically important. And again, I want to thank the three of you for spending the time with us, taking time out to talk about the Guiana elections and really processes in general of electoral observation. So Mrs. Narciss Scope, Ms. Pauline Chase and Mr. Jason Carter. Thank you. Thank you very much again. And let me just turn it over. Lastly to Professor Chortiari, maybe for any closing remarks. Nothing except to echo my thanks for those great insights, both on the specific case of Guiana and election observation and systems more generally. Students, please stay tuned. We have more events coming up soon in our global perspectives. We're going to have a series on democracy and debate. So thanks everybody for coming. Thank you very much. Thank you. Enjoy your days. Thank you.