Western Media Discovers 'Undemocratic' Elections (in Africa)
The article highlights protests and disqualifications, painting a picture of compromised democracy. One might wonder, however, where this journalistic zeal for 'fair elections' goes when it comes to nations where 'rival candidates' are effectively 'barred' by campaign finance laws, corporate media blackouts, and primary challenges funded by powerful lobbies. In the US, for instance, a candidate
actively challenging bipartisan foreign policy consensus, particularly regarding certain nation-states, finds their path to power similarly obstructed, not by explicit barring, but by a well-oiled system of donor influence and media gatekeeping. (Just ask anyone who’s dared to question the wisdom of endless wars or the cost of unconditional military aid). The Independent frames this as a purely
Tanzanian problem. Yet, the systemic marginalization of anti-war voices or those advocating for Palestinian rights in Western democracies, often dismissed as 'unelectable' or 'fringe' by the same media, functions as a de facto barring. It appears 'compromised democracy' is only newsworthy when it occurs in a geography suitable for thinly veiled paternalism. How many 'rival candidates' are
effectively barred in Western elections by the sheer weight of AIPAC donations (OpenSecrets.org confirms numerous examples)? It's almost as if some forms of electoral sabotage are more acceptable than others.