March 14, 2002

1:26 AM

US President George W Bush said he did not recognise the outcome [of the Zimbabwe election] and that the election was "flawed". Whoa, Nelly! Where exactly are we with that Florida count these days?
posted by theplayethic (22 comments total)

"Takes one to know one."
posted by quirkafleeg at 1:42 AM on March 14, 2002

This thread is likely to turn into a trollfest, but it sure is ironic for Dubya to criticize another nation's voting procedures.

Expect an Onion headline any day now: "Mugabe refuses to recognise the outcome of flawed American election".
posted by salmacis at 2:12 AM on March 14, 2002

No shit. I am still in want of a standard here. It used to be America.

But it's sadly not about the 'Florida count' at all. It's about emotion, momentum and a hopeful prognostication that American sentiment is fickle and/or ignorant. Democracy is now nothing but a perception to us as civilians that it does in fact exist, only it doesn't. We merely perceive that it does. But it's all immaterial. Even if Bush had won the election fair and square (which is more than plausible given the election's closeness), democracy was still on the way out. Witness Ralph Nader's campaign for proof of this and now BushII's parroting of Nader's platform of corporate responsibility now, post Enron.

It's all lipservice. None of us as $40k a year and under citizens have any say whatsoever as to what goes on in this country. The perception that we do have a say is what counts to those who maintain the Brand America label. We're no different than the people of Zimbabwe, other than that many of us here in the US have the opportunity to actually make 40k a year. We're still fundamentally powerless next to the huge corporate machine that has supplanted the 'will of the people'.

No difference. No difference at all. Except by those who want us to, strategically for them, believe the perception that it's actually the difference between apples and oranges.
posted by crasspastor at 2:38 AM on March 14, 2002

As far as were we are on the Florida recount, I read one thing saying Gore should have won, and another thing saying Bush should have won. Which means both were still counting different ways. Can anyone give a link to some recount results?

And as fars Zimbabwe goes, I don't really care. Lets solve the problems the US has before pointing out the problems of other countries. And even then I probably wouldn't care who was in charge of Zimbabwe.
posted by Keen at 3:38 AM on March 14, 2002

I'm confused by this whole Zimbabwe thing. The article says Mugabe won by 1.7m votes to Tsvangirai's 1.3m. Then it goes on to say:

"The election has been condemned by Western observers, who said tens of thousands of people, mostly in the opposition stronghold of Harare, were unable to vote."

But tens of thousands isn't exactly the quarter of a million that Tsvangirai needed.

Secondly, I'm really interested in why the US and Britain in particular have made such a big fuss over this, playing the old "enemies of democracy" card. Surely there are plenty of other countries suffering from a poor democratic infrastructure that we don't hear a peep out of. So what's really at stake with Zimbabwe? Is there something they're not telling us? Any enlightenment from someone who's been following the story closely would be much appreciated.
posted by dlewis at 3:47 AM on March 14, 2002

Looking at the Yahoo Election 2000 page, we have the following:
3 stories in favor of Bush, 1 in favor of Gore. Has to do with overvotes, undervotes, voter intent, basically a trainwreck. So each study on the election can have different results.

So what's really at stake with Zimbabwe?
Again at yahoo news I was looking over the headlines, it seems they've been detaining people. like 4 Americans, and I think 1 UK reporter. Also headlines say this Mugabe guy was giving his supporters free land in exchange for votes, and headlines say that the military would not except an election where Mugabe was defeated.
posted by Keen at 4:00 AM on March 14, 2002

dlewis: Well, there was the campaign of violent intimidation leading up to the election as well. And when you've chased away the election observers, there's hardly any guarantee that the count was fair. All the reports coming from Zimbabwe suggested that the opposition had overwhelming support.

I think the thing about Zimbabwe as opposed to all the other dictatorships is that it's a pretend democracy, which can be exposed as undemocratic. On the other hand, the white farmers probably have something to do with Zimbabwe's prominence in the news. [Sigh]
posted by Gaz at 4:04 AM on March 14, 2002

And as fars Zimbabwe goes, I don't really care. Lets solve the problems the US has before pointing out the problems of other countries. And even then I probably wouldn't care who was in charge of Zimbabwe.

Nice outlook... we really need more Americans like you.*

People like yourself really need a reality check - It really doesn't take much to destroy the stability of a nation, no matter how great that nation. If you were in the shoes of the citizens of Zimbabwe (George Bush fixes election by using acts of terror on US citizens, disenfranchising the blacks and anyone else who may vote for the opposition), I would hope the rest of the world would give a damn.

*sarcasm
posted by twistedonion at 4:05 AM on March 14, 2002

Grow up, people. The Florida election was, statistically, a draw. Not the same thing.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:22 AM on March 14, 2002

Yeah who cares. I doubt will see the Zimbabwe election on Oprah, she talks about the real important issues.
heheh
posted by Burgatron at 4:41 AM on March 14, 2002

Democracy is now nothing but a perception.

New tagline?


(You're right, crasspastor, but we might as well dance while we cry.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:43 AM on March 14, 2002

US President George W Bush said he did not recognise the outcome [of the Zimbabwe election] and that the election was "flawed". Whoa, Nelly! Where exactly are we with that Florida count these days?

Uh huh. Call us when Al Gore issues a press release stating that the Zimbabwe election was free and fair.
posted by aaron at 4:45 AM on March 14, 2002

Again at yahoo news I was looking over the headlines, it seems they've been detaining people.

Don't want to patronise, Keen, but Yahoo News's probably not the best source for Zimbabwe stuff. (Oh, and as twistedonion suggests, not bothering to address problems elsewhere in the world is a good way to make them the US's in the future.) The BBC's pretty good for deep background, especially from the correspondents. Also, Feargal Keane's piece for the Indy is invaluable, for its reflection on the same old same old:

For 20 years Mugabe was allowed to get away with murder because Britain and the rest of the world believed he was good for his country.

And say what you like about the Guardian's editorial line, but the online team is good at drawing together all the stories. I especially liked Simon Hoggart's piece from 1980 describing the white Rhodesian regime that was replaced by Mugabe.

Not the same thing.

Perhaps. Weren't there rent-a-mobs on both sides in Florida?
posted by riviera at 4:53 AM on March 14, 2002

Democracy is now nothing but a perception to us as civilians that it does in fact exist ...

That has always been the case -- "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." While it's fashionable to perceive that we're less democratic a nation today than we were at some glorious moment in the past, what monent would that be, exactly? After women and African-Americans got the right to vote, but before TV created the need for monstrous levels of campaign contributions?
posted by rcade at 6:59 AM on March 14, 2002

Riviera: As I understood it, there weren't rent-a-mobs on the left.

Village Voice: ... The "bourgeois riot" celebrated by Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot helped stop the announced manual recount of the 10,750 undervote in Miami-Dade County. Instigated by an order from New York congressman John Sweeney to "shut it down," dozens of screaming GOP demonstrators pounded on doors and a picture window at elections headquarters. The canvassing board, which had already found a net Al Gore gain of 168 votes, reversed a decision it had made a couple of hours earlier to begin a tally of the undervote.

The mob gang-rushed a local Democrat carrying a blank sample ballot. They threatened that a thousand Cubans were on their way to the headquarters to stop the count. Several people were "trampled, punched or kicked," according to The New York Times. The canvassing board chair at first conceded that mob pressures played a role in the shutdown—which cost Gore the 168 votes as well—but later reversed his position.

The high success rate in the partial recount triggered a "mandatory" obligation under state law to count the rest of the ballots, but it also triggered a GOP mania to block it. Sweeney, who was coordinating the assault with a local Cuban congressman, branded Dade "ground zero" in the ballot battle and called the attempted count "theft," though his own representatives were in the room where it was scheduled to begin.

Instead of condemning the Dade tactics, W. himself called the victory party that night to praise them, and Republicans invoked the specter of Jesse Jackson, who'd merely led peaceful protests outside election offices. Unlike Sweeney's mob, Jackson was, of course, protesting real voter theft—the massive Duval County disenfranchising of black voters—a cause all but ignored by Gore for fear the GOP would turn the Florida fight into a Race Thing, their favorite consensus-building gimmick. ...

posted by allaboutgeorge at 8:53 AM on March 14, 2002

The BBC is normally a fine source of objective reporting. That objectivity seems to have broken down in the last few months on Zimbabwe. I won't labour the point but I wonder if others agree?

However bad Mugabe may be, the fact is that he has just submitted himself to an imperfect but conclusive electoral test and has won. There aren't many leaders in Africa of whom that could be said.
posted by grahamwell at 8:55 AM on March 14, 2002

grahamwell:

However bad Mugabe may be, the fact is that he has just submitted himself to an imperfect but conclusive electoral test and has won. There aren't many leaders in Africa of whom that could be said.

graham, are you suggesting that there is something respectable in mugabe's efforts to rig his election to ensure his victory? are you suggesting that this scenario is, by any practical standpoint, effectively distinct from not allowing an election at all?
posted by moz at 9:09 AM on March 14, 2002

Like others, I will take this as an opportunity to discuss the Zimbabwe problem rather than the historical footnote of Florida.

I believe Bush's statement is an important and decisive change in US policy. For the last months both the US and EU have dithered, issuing statements and implementing ineffectual sanctions (travel bans, asset freezes) against Mugabe. The Commonwealth refused to suspend Zimbabwe's membership last month; perhaps now that will change. Certainly the OAU's judgement that the elections were "free and fair" puts the reputation of that body in doubt, given the firm denunciations by European observers.
posted by dhartung at 9:15 AM on March 14, 2002

grahamwell: Interesting point. There has been some dissension within the BBC about possible bias and what line to take. It just isn't clear whether the BBC should be so forthright in shouting from the rooftops that Mugabe is a dictator, even though all the evidence that they've gathered (and I don't suspect them of fabrication there) points in that direction. Maybe the real question is: when the evidence seems to point in one direction, should a news organisation draw the obvious conclusion or allow its readers/viewers to make up their minds? You could say that a failure to draw that conclusion would also be a kind of bias. If you treat the claims of all sides as equally valid in spite of what you know, then that deceives the public.
posted by Gaz at 9:37 AM on March 14, 2002

I'm clearly in a minority but the OAU's judgement does carry some weight with me - and yes - such an election is immeasurably better than no election at all. If Mugabe has stolen it he will have to answer to those he has stolen it from.

Was it stolen? - I don't know - I wasn't there. My point was that the coverage in the UK over the last few months has seemed extremely one sided, shading to pure propaganda with some unpleasant undertones.

Perhaps it's to be expected, given that the issue was the ownership of large amounts of very valuable land, that both sides - together with their allies - gave it their best.

Thanks for the link Gaz.
posted by grahamwell at 10:14 AM on March 14, 2002

Just a quick note about the BBC and its reporting. What should be bourne in mind is that the BBC's presence in Africa, most of it through the extensive BBC World Service Radio, is very important. If your audience live in a rural area and their only access to outside news is this particular medium, its voice becomes very important. The claims of bias are mostly pointing at this service, not necessarily the News24 and other non-African services.

Not only that, the BBC has the word British in its name, ergo, it is an ideal target for Robert Mugabe's claims that Britain is trying to interfere with Zimbabwe's election process.

If you want news for Zimbabweans by Zimbabweans, read the Daily News.

And as fars Zimbabwe goes, I don't really care.

You and most of the rest of the world, keen. At least you're honest.

I'm confused by this whole Zimbabwe thing. The article says Mugabe won by 1.7m votes to Tsvangirai's 1.3m. Then it goes on to say: "The election has been condemned by Western observers, who said tens of thousands of people, mostly in the opposition stronghold of Harare, were unable to vote." But tens of thousands isn't exactly the quarter of a million that Tsvangirai needed

If you have a free and fair election, then EVERYONE has the right to vote for who they want to, irresprective of the result.

In Zimbabwe, 3 critical factors prevented some people from voting as they wished.

1. Intimidation
2. 50% reduction of Polling station numbers in Urban areas
3. 'Help' for those polling in rural areas.

The third one is the least reported, but potentially most damning piece of evidence that the voting was not free and fare:

In parts of Mashonaland entire villages were herded to the polls by "war veterans" with a warning that the ballot box was marked and if the vote went against Mr Mugabe they would face collective punishment.

All the supposedly independent election monitors were soldiers or civil servants from the defence, education and home affairs ministries. Army officers were in charge of the electoral supervisory commission which oversaw the ballot and the count.

A new electoral law permits the registrar general to open and reseal any ballot box without party polling agents being present. Andon Monday, when polling stations were open for the third, unscheduled, day in Harare and Chitungwiza township officials spent all morning "checking equipment" and no one cast a ballot until after noon.

And one more thing, this is kinda ironic innit?
posted by davehat at 4:26 AM on March 16, 2002

The Village Voice account is only one side of that story, naturally. And it should be noted that the mob gathered because what the canvassing board was attempting to do - "examine" the votes in private - was illegal and would have allowed them to get away with God only knows what. Also, the article doesn't really say anything about there not being any Democratic rent-a-mobs, which there certainly were. This thread is dying, so I'm only posting for the historical accuracy of the thread, and won't go pulling up links unless anyone asks.
posted by aaron at 3:37 PM on March 16, 2002