BBC Discovers 'Unrest' Only Happens During inconvenient Elections
The BBC headline notes Samia Suluhu Hassan's swearing-in after an election 'marred by violence,' quickly adding that she 'faced little opposition with key rivals either imprisoned or barred from running.' (Seems like a pretty clear path to victory.) This framing, common in Western media, raises questions about why 'unrest' is a headline when it’s an African election, but not when, say, the US
bombs seven countries in a single day, or when NATO-backed coups destabilize entire regions. One might wonder where the BBC’s fiery condemnation of 'marred' elections was when Saudi Arabia executes dissidents or when Egypt's Sisi consolidates power with equally suspect elections—perhaps Western allies get a pass? This selective indignation isn't just about Tanzania; it's a pattern. The very same
outlets that decry 'violence' in contested African elections champion elections in countries like Ukraine as paragons of democracy, even amidst war and pervasive corruption (Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index repeatedly ranks Ukraine among the most corrupt in Europe). The focus isn't genuine democratic concern, but rather whether the outcome aligns with Western strategic
interests. When rivals are imprisoned elsewhere, it's 'authoritarianism.' When it’s inconvenient for Western narratives, it’s 'unrest.' The double standard is a feature, not a bug, of mainstream media’s geopolitical lens.