Talk about a case of the pot calling the kettle black!
The US has informed Zimbabwe that their elections were unfair!
Among my favourite of the US's observations regarding this unjust election:
- "recognise the legitimacy of the opposition and abandon policies designed to repress, crush and otherwise stifle expressions of differences in Zimbabwe"
- "Although the campaign and election day itself were generally peaceful, the election process was not free and fair," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
- "The electoral playing field was heavily tilted in the government's favour," Condoleezza Rice
- Rice said that more than 10 per cent of would-be voters were turned away at polling stations, and a disproportionately higher ratio of these were turned away in the districts most hotly contested by the government and the opposition.
Does anyone remember something like this happening in the US in 2000 and again in 2004?
From the Sydney Morning Herald
US to Zimbabwe: your elections are unjust
April 2, 2005
The United States said today the Zimbabwe election process was neither free nor fair and called on the government to "recognise the legitimacy of the opposition and abandon policies designed to repress, crush and otherwise stifle expressions of differences in Zimbabwe".
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF party won parliamentary elections today, tightening his grip on power, but the opposition said it had been cheated for the third time in five years.
"Although the campaign and election day itself were generally peaceful, the election process was not free and fair," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a written statement.
"Results are still coming in, but it is already clear that many Zimbabweans have rejected the government's failed policies and are calling for change," she added. "We hope the government will hear and respect these voices."
After a day that began with early successes for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, ZANU-PF racked up huge returns from rural areas and looked set to grab a two-thirds majority in parliament.
"The electoral playing field was heavily tilted in the government's favour," Rice said.
"The independent press was muzzled; freedom of assembly was constrained; food was used as a weapon to sway hungry voters; and millions of Zimbabweans who have been forced by the nation's economic collapse to emigrate were disenfranchised," she added.
Rice said that more than 10 per cent of would-be voters were turned away at polling stations, and a disproportionately higher ratio of these were turned away in the districts most hotly contested by the government and the opposition.
"The United States calls on the Government of Zimbabwe to recognise the legitimacy of the opposition and abandon policies designed to repress, crush and otherwise stifle expressions of differences in Zimbabwe," she said.
"Zimbabwe's leaders have a responsibility to address the political and economic problems that have wrecked what only a few years ago was one of Africa's success stories," she added.
"By restoring democratic institutions and respecting the wishes of its people, Zimbabwe can retake its place as an honorable member of the world community."
Reuters





6 Comments:
No, I don't remember anything like that happening in the US in 2000 and 2004 and neither do you.
The two situations are simply not comparable. Mugabe runs a nasty regime that brutally and violently suppresses dissenters. The United States is a healthy democracy with freedom of expression, rule of law, 3 seperated branches of government with a host of checks and balances. Despite claims to the contrary, the US election result was not the result of fraud. I realize that you're joking, but I just don't find these phony moral equivalencies funny. (Too many people actually think they're real).
(Sorry for the downer mood).. :(
Issachar, I am completely aware that Mugabe is a very bad man, and I don't believe that I was comparing his leadership qualities with that of Bush. So there are no moral equivalencies coming from me on that point. I was commenting only on their electoral spirit!
I really do remember both in 2000 and 2004 that 'typically democrat voters' were turned away from the polls on US election day because they got a speeding ticket 10 years before. And I recall that many votes went uncounted in swing states where the Republicans won by a tiny margin. I also recall in 2000 there was a kerfuffle over invalid absentee votes (or whatever they are called in the US) for the Republicans that were counted, including multiple votes from a single voter, votes without witness, votes dated after the deadline, votes postmarked inside the US, and votes registered under the names of people who were deceased. Worst of all -and I don't like to imagine how this has been allowed to happen- the top two companies supplying vote counting machines were openly supportive of the Republican party and provided funds for the Republican election campaign. To me, these are examples of electoral fraud - dress it up how you want -and not conducive with a "healthy democracy".
Sarah...
I'm sorry, I'm just plain grumpy. I really should be ranting on my own blog rather than defacing yours. (And I know you well enough to know that you're not a moral equivelence type). And that bit about the voting machines is spot on. Even if the companies aren't faking the election, they're still making piss-poor voting machines.
Its alright my dear cousin, no harm done! Why are you grumpy?
May I just add that in Ohio in 2004, in the democratic districts, there were less voting machines, so people had to wait in line for 10 hrs or longer to vote; whereas in Republican districts, there were enough voting machines so that people did not have to wait very long. I consider that a form of disenfranchisement.
The whole concept of voting machines fills me with fear. There are some situations where there is no substitute for a paper trail. Australia has compulsory voting for every non-incarcerated citizen person over 18, and that means there are a lot of voters. But, they do not have voting machines. Australians vote with paper and pen, its unambiguous, its not open to machine error, and its not open to the wrongdoings of partisan election service providers. I haven't voted in Canada so I'm not sure how votes are recorded or counted here, but I don't think I have ever heard of any issues of electoral fraud (correct me if I'm wrong). These things tend to happen in countries where power has gone to the head of those who believe they are in charge. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Post a Comment
<< Home