--- Patrick Bond <pbond at wn.apc.org> wrote: > The
globo-reformist that you are Chris, I didn't
> expect you to get sucked
> into "my enemy's enemy is my friend" crap.
>
Funny how when this sort of thing affects wealthy white farmers, the west suddenly starts worrying about "democracy". I'm not denying that those elections were unfair - but I doubt they were less so that the ones won by "liberalisers" in Eastern Europe, which were endorsed by by western "observers". Some scepticism is in order.
There was a good article about this in the New Statesman last week:
http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/200203110021.htm
_____________________________________________
Robert Mugabe's expulsion of European Union election observers from Zimbabwe was widely reported in horror-struck tones worthy of an attempted rape on Mother Teresa. But I have watched more than 70 elections since 1990, and I think that a little scepticism is in order.
Determining the legitimacy of elections is not just an arithmetical exercise in checking that the returns match the declared result. It is a powerful weapon in global politics. I have seen blatantly rigged polls endorsed by official observers, and I have seen honestly conducted elections discredited. This has led me to the conclusion that - to paraphrase Stalin - it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who observes the voting. The international observers' reports form the basis of a new government's acceptability to international organisations; they also determine access to aid and investment from western taxpayers through the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and so on. A popular mandate is good, but a majority among the observers is better.
...
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com