I’ve seen it for Venezuela and Syria, but i’m sure i could find this for quite a lot of other countries.
We’re usually saying that it would legitimize these elections, and are asking instead that the opponents boycott them. We can continue to criticize the biases surrounding the votes instead of the votes themselves if that’s the problem.
Some leaders may believe that the processus of elections is biased because unjust external pressures are putting a strain on the country and strengthening the opposition ; but, despite that, some of them are still asking for international observers, which could be an occasion to seize, instead of refusing to send them yet accusing them of cheating.
So i wonder if i’m missing something by thinking that we don’t want to legitimate the whole process by counting the votes.
For them it seems like it would be the same if they’re already asking, but for us it could open our societies to accusations of double standards since it could be argued that our own elections aren’t perfect.
In the end sanctions would stay in place so it wouldn’t be useful in any way, and doesn’t matter, i should probably delete this post but i’m leaving it in the off-chance that some find an interest in it.
If you had the initial thought that international observers won’t prevent cheating : they would count in double the votes, with the venezuelans of their area, and have everything under their eyes from the beginning of the vote to the end of the official count, so i don’t see how cheating would be possible.
For now, our version is that they’re miscounting the votes, yet we’re refusing to send such observers.
Because the votes are counted in a wrong way, or because he got rid of the opposition, or because he’s controlling the medias ? The first one is false, even western surveys confirmed his support, but the second and third one could be debated, yet it gets interesting since we could throw the same accusations at our own countries(, it’s very difficult to launch a new political party in France since you need an agreement from hundreds of mayors who reserve them to mainstream candidates, and almost impossible to be known without at least a bit of support from mainstream(legacy) medias, Internet could perhaps change that one day but we’re not (t)here yet).
You’re changing the question here, all democratic countries has their flaws for diverse reasons (France would be that as there is a two round system, lots of small parties would undermine the democratic outcome, I guess. Sometimes it’s history, almost always it can be better. But we’re democracies at least).
Russia is a dictatorship.
They want Legitimacy and if we, the west, sends people, and even better, we send people and they find no errors (in the small thing they investigate because believe me, Russia won’t allow us to send people checking out other things), that will bring Legitimacy to the dictatorship.
I’m glad to talk with someone “normal” like you, it’s actually becoming quite rare on Lemmy :)
Would you mind giving me a single thing that Russia has and we have not ? Media control ? Political prisoners ? Excessive laws ? Unsatisfactory election process ? What else ?
Keep in mind that the recent arrests were done in times of war, not only under a ukrainian pressure but quite a lot of other stuff like sanctions, covert actions, a blown-up gazoduc, …, Ukraine did hundreds of times worse and it’s not always justified, but surely you can easily find other proofs of Russia’s dictatorship to make me see the light ? I would unironically feel indebted to you if you took the time to correct me from my misconceptions, and we could take another country if you prefer.
Our media are controlled by capitalists(, except public&alternative medias).
We have a long list of political prisoners, it doesn’t stop at J.Assange, we’re also wiretapped among other measures to prevent any revolution.
We have laws against extremists or domestic terrorists, also against illegal speeches, more and more on the Internet. Could be worse, isn’t going to be better apparently.
Please tell me what you’re thinking about that makes them a dictatorship and not us.
Oh no, a Russ bot, how unsatisfying.
Oh, interesting. Is OP actually a bot?
I assumed it was a Russian user spreading misinformation. Maybe the weak grasp on English is an AI thing instead of non-native speaker thing in this case. It got me.
Nah, just an astroturfer. Apparently he’s doing it for free too lol.
Yeah, i know, i’m paid a lot
But don’t you find it interesting to challenge our preconceptions ? To learn how to defend our beliefs ?
I think i could almost defend all of our declared enemies if you’re uneasy with Russia, and criticize almost all of our allies. In the end i believe that we(sterners) are the one launching hostilities, and that a world peace is desirable&possible.
But if you don’t mind i’d like to try convincing someone that our point of view is erroneous, even if i won’t insist if you don’t feel like talking about that.
Do you know why we consider that some states are illegitimate “regimes” ? Do they deserve it for human rights or are they just annoying because they’re opposing our hegemonic expansion/uniformisation(, first anti-communist, now anti-islamist, then whatever else survived the colonization) ?
It doesn’t seem that we’ll be able to play the policemen of the world for long, yet inequalities between countries aren’t being reduced, since they’re increasing then perhaps that our control could go on for centuries ?
(And on your argument about legitimacy it may be more honest to talk about what precedes the votes rather than the votes themselves if the latter were counted correctly, no ?)