Rwanda: Does landslide win prove Kagame dictatorship?
HAVE you ever read a story that make you ask why it’s in the paper? Some Christian Science Monitor reporter writing about Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s projected win of more than 90 percent of the vote in Rwanda, would like you to know this that:
If the final result is something similar [to the 92.9 percent from exit poll] – which most observers expect it will be, given that the top opposition candidates have been prevented from running – Mr. Kagame’s presidential win will be among the most lopsided.
The reporter, who was in Boston, added that “that’s saying something, because the world has seen some landslide victories in recent years.” I really don’t understand what that “something” is, but here is what our ace reporter gives some example:
Just last week, for instance, Colombia’s conservative Juan Manuel Santos won with 69 percent of the vote. That healthy win parallels that of his ideological rival next door, Hugo Chávez, who won Venezuela’s last presidential election in 2006 with almost 63 percent of the vote.
I still don’t get what South America is doing in this story, but the reporter tries to explain:
Such margins would be unthinkable in the US, where 55 percent would be considered the landslide to end all landslides. But many recent free and fair elections around the world have been won by candidates who have garnered more than 60 percent of the vote. It’s when you get into victories won with more than 80 percent of the vote that the democracy starts to look a little less than healthy.
Now I’m really lost. Is he saying that Hugo Chávez and Juan Manuel Santos were elected fairly? If yes, what are their names doing in this story? And if not, should we consider them democratic because they fall under 80 percent? (I’m not passing any judgment on the South American presidents).
In 1984 Ronald Reagan received 97.58 percent of the electoral college vote, though no one has ever called him a dictator.
According to the Monitor, Kagame, who in 1990 received military training from the United States, is up there with “dictators” like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, who recorded a 100 percent victory in 2002. But the reporter loses me again when he writes, that “Kagame’s victory is not unprecedented. In 2005, he won with more than 95 percent of the vote.”
OK? What then is the news? Oh, I get it: He said “in recent history.” Kagame’s 95 percent win was in 2005, which falls in ancient history.
I guess writing an article about the role the United States might have played in making Kagame a “dictator” (I don’t know enough to say whether he is one or not) would have been too difficult. How about one looking at how many U.S. presidents have received more than 80 percent of the electoral college vote? Won’t that be interesting?
No related posts.