LogFAQs > #930323779

What this really turns on is how strong and stable the election system of a country is. In theory, there is nothing wrong per se with a popular president winning election after election for life. If that's what the people want, why not? It's problematic when the president eventually starts to see reelection for life as his personal right, and acting accordingly. Recall that the same thing happened in Zimbabwe in 2008 - after winning elections easily for 28 years Mugabe was finally in a position where he was behind in an election. The opposition said they got 50.3% in round one and avoided a runoff while the election commission said they got 47% (still first place, but requiring a runoff) after some long delays in the counting.

Then there was a violent campaign for the runoff and Mugabe scored 90% in the runoff. Free and fair elections in Zimbabwe lasted as long as Mugabe and ZANU-PF were winning.

That said, I absolutely do not discount the possibility that observers in the US/Europe exhibit a bias in their view of elections in third world countries in that they disbelieve that opposition candidates can fairly lose despite winning huge majorities in the cities. They see 200,000 people marching for the opposition in Tehran and conclude they must represent the majority of Iran. They don't see the silent majority in the rural areas, which are probably underrepresented in the limited polling data available also.

And yeah, by their standards, they might well disbelieve the legitimacy of any American election in which a Republican wins after being behind in the polls. Certainly, Republicans lose in the cities and lose big when judging by crowd size, media presence, etc. But they win the silent majority.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!