Monday, March 20, 2006

Aftermath of Belarus' Elections

Once again, the United States and Russia are on opposite sides of the line; Russia congratulating Aleksandr Lukashenka since "the people have spoken", the United States calling for a new election.

It was not an open election process, and Lukashenka's regime had no intention of holding a free and fair election. At the same time, my reading of polling data indicates that even if a free election were to be held, he would probably win with a slight majority, simply because, having been burned in the early 1990s with a prime minister who promised democracy and prosperity, most voters are going to stick with economic stability (especially given the trajectory of Ukraine since 2004).

This raises the question--what happens if an open election was held that returned the same result? The assumption here seems to be that if an election was not free and fair, then only the opposite result could be the legitimate one.

Reading some of the overseas commentary, it is very clear that the tepid reaction to election violations in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan is discounting some of the U.S. criticism of Belarus'.

Not at all. The presumption is that with a free and fair election... one which is KNOWN by residents to be free and fair, more specifically, then the results would most likely be quite different.
Its not as if people in Belarus have a lot of cause to complain about Lukashenka's governance. After all, the population of Ukraine has declined by about 5 million since the breakup of the USSR, and Russia's population has declined by about 7 million since the breakup of the USSR.

And Belarus has yet to lose even 1 million.

Of course, it is no suprise that the U.S. government is upset about the refusal of the government of Belarus to inflict a collossal socio-economic disaster on its people.

What is a suprise is the apparent belief on the part of the U.S. government that its has any standing to criticise that refusal.
Romerican, look at poll data from Belorussia. Even American firms concluded opposition candidates couldn't win. And the Belorussians just have to look at how West abandoned Yushchenko to conclude that if they were to do the same they would pay the price. EU threatens sanctions but never promised benefits.
German press agency says opposition tally has Lukashenka winning 45 percent of the vote, still having a plurality, but of course requiring a second round vote.
Here again - the essential definition of democracy comes into question, and demands definition.

The fascist warmongers, profiteers, incompetent chickenhawks, rapturist fanatics, and disinformation warriors in the Bush government have somehow managed to morph, mangle, shapeshift, and blurr the term "democracy" into what is more accurately called tyranny.

Our leaders laud the hollow word "democracy" and the peoples right to decide, until, and unless the said people decide to elect leaders or form a government that refuses to conform, bow, pay homage to, and/or provide obscene profits for the fascist cabals in the Bush government - at which point, the elections process, the peoples decision making, and the newly formed government do not meet the Bush governments perverted interpretation of democracy.

Militarily attacking, occupying, and profiteering wantonly in nationbuilding is IMPERIALISM and TYRANNY, - not democracy or liberation.

Diabolizing or attempting to isolate, coerce, penalize, or threatening governments, or elected leaders militarily or economically that do not conform to the political, religious, and economic interests of cabals, klans, cronies, and oligarchs in the Bush is the definition of fascism.

The fascist warmongers, profiteers, incompetent chickenhawks, and rapturist fanatics in the Bush government would have Americans believe -
Fascism = democracy
Tyranny = democracy
Imperialism = democracy
Systemic cronyism = democracy
Corporatism = democracy
Puppet government beholden to the Bush government = democracy.

All other form of government, or leadership = evildoers.

Pretty please, would you, could you please define "democracy" so that we can all agree on what democracy looks like, and what principles define democracy?

Then perhaps, we can all begin to discuss in earnest some meaningful strategies toward peace on earth and good will toward men.

Now all we have from government, (and particularly the Bush government) are a festering litany lies, abuses, deceptions, failure, cronyism, fascism, tyranny, the superrich ruthlessly oppressing and robbing from the poor and middle class; political, religious, societal, cultural, and economic division and divisiveness; and leaders pathologically bent of engorging their own off sheet accounts, dominating regions, nations, and peoples, and the prosecution of neverendingwar.

"Deliver us from evil"
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?