elections

„The West“ and it´s arrogance in promoting and deriding elections elsewhere

radioyaran Egypt, Syria, Ukraine, USA , , , ,

„The West“, a phrase by which mainly The US and its western European NATO allies are meant considers itself and only itself entitled and qualified to determine who deserves to be voted, boycotted and overthrown in any country.

The rules of the game are quite easy:
If the ruler is pro-Russian or his country predominantly in the Russian geopolitical hemisphere he is almost by definition illegitimate. So, if any political, religious or ethnic group raises in opposition to such a country’s government, the oppositions autonomy and separatism oriented demands are legitimate. The ruler has to give in to the alleged will of „the people“ and relinquish power. If a part of such a pro-Russian state holds a referendum and demands autonomy, western politicians will be the first to support secessionist ideas and apply pressure to the central government.
Examples are ex-Yugoslavia and Syria.

If absolutely democratic elections are held and the outcome – thus the majority will of the people – does not please „the West“, the elected government will be shunned at best and isolated and sanctioned at worst. The voters will be punished for making the „wrong“ decision. So democracy and free elections do not protect anyone from the wrath of the West, and at the same time the West does not see any violation of its otherwise proudly propagated values such as freedom of choice.
Examples are the elections of Hamas in Palestine and Mohammad Morsi in Egypt.

If you are the man of the West or at least the enemy of the West´s enemy you can forcefully remove a democratically elected government, e.g. through a military coup, and win dubious elections, sometimes with 93% of the votes and afterwards be praised by the West as legitimate winner.
Examples are the Egyptian and Ukrainian elections

So, while Assads 88% are brushed off as „farce“ or „parody of the democracy“, Sisis 93% are supposed to be regarded as serious and respectable outcome.

When the US´ favorite gets 93% of the votes, the west won´t call elections a farce

radioyaran Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukraine, USA , , , , , , , , ,

Look at this BBC article about Egypts Sisis landslide (93%) win of the presidential elections:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27614776

Though the article mentions that turnout was low and the powerful Muslim Brotherhood was banned, it does not quote a single western (almost always an american president or foreign secretary or their british-french counterparts) calling the elections a farce, or a fraud or a „parody of democracy“ as UKs William Hague already did with regards to the upcoming Syrian elections.

Imagine Assad would get 93%. Western press and politicians would tear apart the event and ridicule the Syrian regime.
Not however in Egypt where the darling of the US  (and Saudi Arabia) has won.

Watch out for the reports coming after Assads electoral victory in a couple of days:
You will read about „irregularities“ and manipulation, reported by „activists“. You will read that each and every Syrian was bullied and observed by a Mukhabarat thug or the notorious „Shabiha“ to intimidate him towards voting for Assad. Local „activists“ will report about having witnessed how the same Alawites travelled from one village to the neighbouring one to vote for Assad multiple times while Sunnis were prevented from voting (against Assad) by pro-Assad militiamen. You will read about Assad having allegedly received 100% of votes even from rebel strongholds. All these „facts“ that will rain down on you from various – of course – totally reliable sources inside Syria will be intended to prove to you that – unlike the elections in Ukraine or Egypt – the Syrian election was a „joke“, an insult to „millions of Syrians“ who hate Assad and love the rebels and and and…

 

Syria and the idiocy of western reporting and policies

radioyaran Syria , , , , , ,

Analyzing todays BBC report http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27535380 of a deadly attack on (mainly) civilian Syrian government supporters during an election rally is quite insightful and yet another chapter in the series of shamelessly biased western reporting.

While the report almost entirely quotes two clearly anti-government and pro rebel sources, namely the „SOHR“ and „activists“, who are both supporters of the attacks perpetrators, not a single government official or pro-government civilian is allowed to speak and condemn the attacks, something that the BBC neither does directly nor indirectly (e.g. by explicitly avoiding to call the attack an act of terrorism or provide pictures).
One might contract this with reports of government shelling of rebel areas, in which cases at least one rebel or rebel sympathizer is quoted either accusing Assad of killing his own people or calling for western countries to supply (even more) weapons to the rebels. Plus, almost certainly such a report would feature a photo series showing debris, bloodied civilians, crying mothers and heroic rebels carrying the wounded.

Coming back to the BBC report, the most brazen aspect is that the BBC abuses the report to ridicule Assad and hence the victims with insulting comments about the Syrian elections: „UK Foreign Secretary William Hague called the elections a „parody of democracy“ and repeated its call for Bashar Assad to stand down.“