How Electoral Malpractices in the United States Embolden Dictators Around the World

It seems to have been assumed that democratic elections could be carried out with as much transparency as possible. That was before 2000 when the United States appeared unsure about who had won the presidential elections that pitted George Bush against Al Gore. The winner, as we know, was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even during the 2000 presidential elections, there were long lines of people waiting to vote. It was said that some of them went back home without having the opportunity to vote. A similar thing happened in the last elections that pitted Barack Obama against Mitt Romney. Long lines of people were seen standing at polling stations and machinations were reported to have been afoot to prevent them from voting. The world was watching all this. If the United States, which prides itself as a paragon of democracy cannot conduct a good, transparent election, how is it possible for countries like Zimbabwe to conduct one?

And that question is the crux of the matter with respect to the just ended presidential elections in Zimbabwe. The opposition is crying foul, the ruling party is saying that everything went well. African observers are saying that no election is ever perfect. Britain and the United States are saying there were electoral irregularities. South Africa is congratulating Mr. Mugabe as winner. Now we seem to be working with degrees of electoral imperfections. Who is to say what a good election looks like when the United States is unable to conduct one? Any election is just as good as the other given that there is no perfect election. Is this politics or postmodernism coming to its own?