Thanks for the reply, and I’ll grant you the CFR article about Zimbabwe, but it was written after the election. What I am pointing out is that calling an election a ‘sham’ before it happens is future reporting, not fact reporting.
And really, not news reporting at all.
Actually, I disagree on that. Yes, some elections can only be determined to be a sham if fraud is discovered after the fact. However, it also is entirely possible to look at some elections before they happens and determine that the conditions under which the election is being held are fundamentally biased.
For example, in an active war zone where residents of one side of the other may temporarily flee their homes, or when the election is being conducted under the auspices of a regime that is openly attempting to acquire and annex that land, or when no campaigning is permitted or free speech is permitted, that election is fundamentally unfair. The Russians literally have arrested and deported political leaders that support Ukraine in those areas.
Under those conditions, it is entirely reasonable and fact-based to declare an election to be a sham before it has happened.
Actually, I disagree on that. Yes, some elections can only be determined to be a sham if fraud is discovered after the fact. However, it also is entirely possible to look at some elections before they happens and determine that the conditions under which the election is being held are fundamentally biased.
For example, in an active war zone where residents of one side of the other may temporarily flee their homes, or when the election is being conducted under the auspices of a regime that is openly attempting to acquire and annex that land, or when no campaigning is permitted or free speech is permitted, that election is fundamentally unfair. The Russians literally have arrested and deported political leaders that support Ukraine in those areas.
Under those conditions, it is entirely reasonable and fact-based to declare an election to be a sham before it has happened.