Editor's Note on Election Central:

CountryWatch Inc. is in the process of launching a new website focused solely on international elections.  Until CountryWatch users are able to access that new website, we have included the following --

(1) A listing of all forthcoming elections that we will be covering in our regular Country Reviews is available directly after my signature. 
(2) Further down the page, we have also included the write ups related to current elections of note.  
(3) As a courtesy to our CountryWatch users, we have maintained the availability of our extensive coverage of the landmark United States elections of 2008.  This "Special Report" is available below at the bottom of the page.  

We encourage our CountryWatch users to go to use the drop-down feature on our homepage to access the specific country of interest to find background information,  prevailing issues affecting the country at hand, trends related to previous elections, as well as information about forthcoming elections.   

Should you have any particular questions related to international elections, please email me via this form http://www.countrywatch.com/about/contact.aspx.

Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman
Editor in Chief and Executive Vice President
www.countrywatch.com

**********

(1) Elections at stake--

Past, current and forthcoming elections include --

Dec. 13, 2009: Chile's presidential and parliamentary elections
Dec. 18, 2009: Elections in Dominica
Dec. 27, 2009: Uzbekistan general elections
Dec. 27, 2009: Croatian presidential election (first round)
Jan. 10, 2010: Croatian presidential election (second round)
Jan. 9, 2010: Parliamentary election in Taiwan
Jan. 17, 2010; Ukraine's presidential election (first round)
Jan.17, 2010: Chile's presidential election (second round)
Jan. 25, 2010: General elections in St. Kitts and Nevis
Jan.26, 2010: Sri Lanka's presidential election
Feb. 3, 2010: Greece's presidential election
Feb. 7, 2010: Costa Rica's parliamentary and presidential elections
Feb. 7, 2010: Ukraine's presidential election (second round)
Feb. 28, 2010: Tajikistan's parliamentary elections
March 4, 2010: Togo's new date for presidential election
March 7, 2010: Iraq's parliamentary elections
March 14, 2010: Colombia's parliamentary elections
April 8, 2010: Snap parliamentary elections in Sri Lanka
April 11-13, 2010: Sudan's presidential elections (also listed as possible date for parliamentary polls)
April 11, 2010: Hungary's parliamentary elections (first round)
April 18, 2010: Northern Cyprus' presidential election
April 24, 2010: Nauru's parliamentary elections
April 25, 2010: Austria's presidential election
April 25, 2010: Hungary's parliamentary elections (second round)
May 5, 2010: Parliamentary elections in Mauritius
May 6, 2010: Parliamentary elections in United Kingdom
May 10, 2010: Philippines' parliamentary and presidential elections
May 16, 2010: Dominican Republic's parliamentary elections
May 23, 2010: Ethiopia's parliamentary elections
May 24, 2010: Snap parliamentary elections in Trinidad and Tobago
May 25, 2010: Suriname's parliamentary elections
May 28, 2010: Parliamentary elections in Czech Republic (first round)
May 30, 2010: Colombia's presidential election
June 1, 2010: Parliamentary elections in Egypt (competing date; see Oct-Nov 2010)
June 9, 2010: Parliamentary elections in the Netherlands
June 12, 2010: Slovak Republic's parliamentary elections
June 13, 2010: Belgium's parliamentary elections
June 19, 2010: Nauru's elections
June 20, 2010: Poland's presidential election (first round)
June 20, 2010: Colombia's second round presidential election
June 27, 2010: Guinea's presidential election (tentative; first round)
June 28, 2010: Burundi's presidential election (first round)
June 29, 2010: Hungary's presidential election
June 2010: Czech Republic's parliamentary elections (second round)
June 2010: Qatar's parliamentary elections (tentative)
July 4, 2010: Poland's presidential election (second round)
July 9, 2010: By-elections in Dominica
July 18, 2010: Guinea's presidential election (second round; delayed)
July 23-28, 2010: Burundi's parliamentary elections
July 26, 2010: Burundi's presidential election (second round)
July 2010: Japan's parliamentary elections
July 2010: Suriname's presidential election
July-Aug. 2010: Elections in Solomon Islands
Mid- 2010: Tentative timeframe for general elections in Myanmar/Burma
Mid-2010: Expected timeframe for elections in Moldova
Aug. 1, 2010: Sao Tome and Principe's parliamentary elections
Aug. 9, 2010: Rwanda's presidential election
Aug. 21, 2010: Australia's parliamentary  elections (moved from Oct. 2010)
August 2010: Solomon Islands' parliamentary elections
Sept. 5, 2010: Internal vote on prime minister in Nepal
Sept. 18, 2010: Afghanistan's parliamentary elections (postponed from May)
Sept. 19, 2010: Sweden's parliamentary elections
Sept. 19, 2010: Guinea's presidential election (second round; new date)
Sept.26, 2010: Venezuela's parliamentary elections
Sept. 30, 2010: Madagascar's parliamentary elections
September/October  2010: Parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan
September 2010: Elections in Tuvalu
Oct. 2, 2010: Latvia's parliamentary elections
Oct. 3, 2010: Brazil's parliamentary elections and presidential election (first round)
Oct. 3, 2010: Bosnia-Herzegovina's presidential and parliamentary elections
Oct.10, 2010: Kyrgyzstan's parliamentary elections
Oct. 31, 2010: Tanzania's presidential and parliamentary elections
Oct. 31, 2010: Brazil's presidential election (second round)
Oct. 31, 2010: Possible date for Cote d'Ivoire's elections
October 2010: Madagascar's presidential election
October 2010: Elections in Bahrain
Nov. 2, 2010: United States' parliamentary elections
Nov. 7, 2010: Myanmar's/Burma's elections
Nov. 7, 2010: Azerbaijan's parliamentary elections
Nov. 9, 2010: Jordan's parliamentary elections
Nov. 16, 2010: Possible date for Thailand's elections
Nov. 21, 2010: Burkina Faso's presidential election
Nov. 25, 2010: Tonga's parliamentary elections
Nov. 26, 2010: Madagascar's presidential election (postponed from May)
Nov. 28, 2010: Chad's presidential election (first round)
Nov. 28, 2010: Haiti's presidential election
November 2010: Bahrain's parliamentary elections
November 2010: Egypt's parliamentary elections (competing date; see June 1, 2010)
December 2010: St. Vincent and the Grenadines' parliamentary elections
December 2010: Nauru's presidential election
December 2010: Jordan's parliamentary elections
December 2010: Equatorial Guinea's presidential election
December 2010: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Niger
2010: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Cote d'Ivoire (highly tentative)
Jan. 9, 2011: Independence vote in South Sudan
Jan. 23, 2011: Central African Republic's elections
Nov. 27, 2011: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Democratic Rep. of Congo
2011: Presidential and parliamentary elections in Nigeria

Note also -

- Second round of Afghan presidential election set for Nov. 7, 2009, was cancelled
- Presidential election in Niger set for Nov. 14 and Dec. 6, 2009, has been cancelled; highly tentative possibility of elections in Dec. 2010
- Presidential election originally set for September 2009 in Angola was postponed
- Haiti's Feb. 28. 2010, parliamentary elections did not go forward due to devastation of earthquake
- 2010 elections expected in Jordan
- No date available for elections in Yemen
- Despite international pressure, no date available for anticipated elections in Fiji
- Minority government in Canada means parliamentary elections are possible
- Unstable majority in Italy due to defection of faction making snap elections possible

************


(2)  Coverage of key elections --

Forthcoming elections include: Nepal, Sweden, Bahrain,  Brazil, Venezuela, Haiti, Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Tanzania, Central African Republic.  

Completed elections include:  Australia, Japan,  the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Slovak Republic,  Czech Republic,  Belgium,  United Kingdom, Iraq, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Mauritius, Philippines, Colombia,  Suriname, Dominican Republic, Dominica,  Trinidad and Tobago,   Rwanda, Burundi, , Ethiopa and Egypt.


Forthcoming elections --

Asia: Nepal

Nepalese parliament delays latest vote to elect new prime minister

Nepalese Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, who became prime minister in May 2009, announced during a televised speech that he was resigning from his post in mid-2010. He said that the move was oriented toward ending the political deadlock plaguing the country, and toward the advancement of the peace process. Prime Minister Nepal was appointed to stand at the helm of a 22-party coalition that succeeded the Maoist government said: "I have decided to resign from the post of prime minister so that the peace process can be completed, a new constitution drafted and the current political deadlock resolved." He continued, "I had frequently urged the political parties including the Maoists to find an appropriate way out of the present deadlock and forge a consensus. But no agreement has reached so far." He concluded that it "would be inappropriate to further prolong the situation of confusion and indecision."

On the other side of the equation, the Maoists, who control the most seats in parliament but decided to step back from the reins of power more than a year earlier, have been urging Prime Minister Nepal to resign. They have argued that, as the largest political force, their party should determine who should hold the position of prime minister. Attention was on who might be Prime Minister Nepal's successor with the two main blocs -- the governing coalition and the Maoists -- at odds on the matter. That being said, both sides found concurrence on the need for an extension on the schedule to draft a new democratic constitution.

By the start of August 2010, there had been three failed attempts to elect a new prime minister of Nepal. Both candidates -- Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN-M) Chairman Prachanda and Nepali Congress Vice-Chairman Ramchandra Paudel failed to acquire a majority of the votes necessary to win the position in the previous rounds. According to Interim Constitution of Nepal, which has been in place since 2007, a candidate must garner a majority of the votes in parliament -- 300 votes out of 599 -- to win the internal election for the position of prime minister. A fourth round intended to elect the head of government was scheduled on Aug. 6, 2010. On that day, once again Nepal failed to elect a new prime minister. While Maoist leader Prachanda secured the most votes, he fell short of an outright majority in the parliamentary vote. A fifth round of voting was set for Aug. 18, 2010. However, ahead of that date, Nepal's parliament delayed the vote in order to give some time to honor the death of a Maoist parliamentarian.  By Aug. 23, 2010, it was announced that the new date set for voting on the position of prime minister would be Sept. 5, 2010.  In this way, the leadership chasm on Nepal would be prolonged further.


Europe: Sweden

Election campaign commences in Sweden

In mid-August 2010, Sweden was preparing for general elections to be held on September 19, 2010.  With an eye on the impending vote, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt -- the  ruling alliance leader -- said that the   top priority of his bloc was to continue to decrease taxes, with particular emphasis on retirees.  To this end, he said:   "Swedish people are already benefitted from the lower tax policy. The nurses have 1,500 kronor (about 219 U.S. dollars) extra per month in their wallet."  With Sweden having the highest income tax in the world, Prime Minister
Reinfeldt said that decreasing taxes would ensure more take home funds for the Swedish citizenry, as well as a boost to employers hoping to hire workers.  As well, given Sweden's ability to weather the global financial  crisis, the prime minister was emphasizing the economy in his election campaign platform. The opposition party, the Social Democratic Party led by Mona Sahlin, emphasized the economy as well in its own election platform, but in its case, the priority was job creation for young people.  Sahlin also made a point of criticizing the priorities of Reinfeldt's Moderates.  She said,   "The Moderates think that lowering taxes is the priority. They don't see any others. Not youth unemployment, not exclusion of the sick ... not growing inequality between people."  A month ahead of the election, the race was shown to be very close with the ruling alliance, composed of Moderate Party, Center Party, Christian Democratic Party and People's Party, vying to hold onto power against the "red-green" coalition of the Social Democratic Party, Left Party and Green Party.


Middle East: Bahrain

Ahead of elections, Bahrain moving toward heightened sectarian tensions and state of emergency

Ahead of elections scheduled for October 23,  2010, the Middle Eastern country of Bahrain was moving  toward heightened sectarian tensions and a state of emergency.  On August 17, 2010,  four Shi'ite activists were arrested, including Abduljalil al-Singace, the spokesman for the Shiite organization Haq Movement for Liberty and Democracy.  He was charged with inciting threats to national security.  Three other members of the group were also arrested for similar charges, including "forming an organized network aiming to shake the security and stability of the country," according to news media in Bahrain.  All four individuals denied the charges against them as riots broke out across Bahrain in protests of their treatment.  Shi'ites have long complained that Sunnis have an electoral advantage due to the manner in which voting districts have been organized.  At issue has been the fact that while Bahrain is home to a Shi'ite majority, the government has been dominated by Sunnis.  This disconnection has increasingly become a source of political friction in Bahrain and could b the source of heightened ethnic tensions between the Sunni-led government and Bahrain's Shi'ite majority ahead of the elections.
 

Americas: Brazil

Ruling party candidate Rousseff advances lead over Serra ahead of Brazil's presidential election

The presidential election in Brazil was scheduled for Oct. 3, 2010. At issue was the successor to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva who had served two consecutive four-year terms, the maximum allowed under Brazil's constitution. The main presidential contenders to succeed President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva were Dilma Rousseff of the Workers' Party and Jose Serra of the Social Democracy Party. Other notable contenders were the Green Party's candidate, Marina Silva, and Plinio Soares de Arruda Sampaio of the Socialism and Freedom Party. Ahead of that election in early August 2010, the presidential contenders participated in the first televised debate. Analysts said that there was no clear winner following the debate that addressed economics, health care, public transport, and infrastructure. Polling data showed Rousseff and Serra to be the two top contenders. Rousseff -- a former chief of staff of the president -- was trailing behind Serra -- Sao Paulo's former governor -- by about 10 percentage points. However, if no candidate garners more than 50 percent of the vote share, a second round would be held a month later. It polling trends hold steady, Serra would win the first round and face Rousseff in the runoff four weeks later; in that second round, Serra could not count on a guaranteed victory since Rousseff could benefit from a consolidated left-wing vote. By August 26, 2010, polling data showed a shift in the dynamics of the election race with Rousseff pulling ahead. According to a Datafolha poll, Rousseff was now commanding 49 percent of support -- a seismic shift in modern political terms against Serra who had 29 percent support and Green Party candidate Marina Silva with nine percent. The shift in fortune for Rousseff seemed at least partially attributable to a well-managed public relations and advertising campaign.

 
Americas: Venezuela

Venezuela gears up for legislative elections

On August 26, 2010, the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and the opposition Democratic Unity Table (MUD) began their respective campaigns ahead of the country's legislative elections to be held on Sept. 26, 2010. President Hugo Chavez' PSUV was hoping for victory while the opposition NUD admitted that it faced an uphill battle against the president's party at the polls. At stake were the 165 seats in the Venezuelan National Assembly.

 
Americas: Haiti

Haitian-born singer Wyclef Jean deemed ineligible to contest presidential election; says he will appeal

In August 2010, Haitian-born singer Wyclef Jean indicated that he would announce his candidacy for president of earthquake-ravaged Haiti. A presidential election in that country was set to take place on Nov. 28, 2010. Wyclef Jean was expected to run on behalf of the political coalition called Ansanm Nou Fo, which translates as "together we are strong" in Haitian Creole.

 Wyclef Jean's qualifications for the office of president were expected to evoke questions since he would have to prove five consecutive years of residency in Haiti, ownership of property, and possess no other citizenship but Haitian. Having said that, adherence to such regulations has not always been strictly respected in past elections. While Wyclef Jean would command high recognition and popularity, analysts have expressed doubts about his lack of policy experience. Whoever wins the election would be faced with the monumental task of rebuilding the earthquake-ravaged and impoverished country with a history of political upheaval.

By Aug. 20, 2010, Haiti's electoral commission had ruled against Wyclef Jean, deeming him to be ineligible to stand for election on the basis that he has not lived in the country for five years prior to the election. For his part, Wyclef Jean said he would appeal the ruling, arguing that in his capacity as a roving ambassador for Haiti since 2007, he should not be held to strict residency requirements. On Aug. 22, 2010, the Haitian hip hop singer said during an interview with the Associated Press that he possessed documentation regarding his candidacy, "which shows everything is correct." He subsequently made the following announcement via Twitter: "Tomorrow our lawyers are appealing the decision of the CEP. We have met all the requirements set by the laws. And the law must be respected."

Africa: Guinea

Moratorium followed by new date for second round of presidential election in Guinea

On June 27, 2010, a presidential election was held in Guinea. Touted as the country's first democratic poll in the country's history, it came in the aftermath of a period of chaos that has plagued Guinea in recent times.

That chaos was sparked by the death of Guinea's long-serving Guinean leader, Lansana Conte in 2008. Soon thereafter, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara came to power in a bloodless coup d'etat. By 2009, a massacre of political protestors at the hands of the country's military thrust the country into heightened turmoil. By the end of the year, the attempted assassination of Camara did little to alleviate the state of chaos. Guinea has seen some degree of stabilization since power was left in the hands of General Sekouba Konate. Since the start of 2010, Konate has been regarded as the person best positioned to guide the country on the path of stabilization.

Indeed, Konate appeared to have made good on his promise to return the country to civilian rule, and to prohibit members of his ruling junta from contesting the election, which was taking place under the aegis of the roadmap for peace, known as the Ouagadougou Accords. Although the actual the presidential election was postponed until Jun 2010, it was now being held with 24 candidates on the ballot. The main issues at stake in the election were food security, access to potable water, basic infrastructure development, health, and education. The candidates deemed to have the best chance of capturing the presidency were two former prime ministers, Cellou Dalein Diallo and Sidya Toure, as well as well-known opposition leader, Alpha Conde.

The days leading up to the election included violent clashes reported between militants of the Union of Republican Forces (UFR) and the Union of the Democratic Forces of Guinea (UFGD). That being said, more than 500 international monitors were on hand to witness the election and the United Nations called for the actual conduct of the election to be peaceful and free from fraudulence. That being said, the National Council of Civil Society Organizations (CNOSC) in Guinea reported several cases of fraud and other irregularities in the capital, Conakry, and elsewhere the country. This claim of fraud appeared to be somewhat backed by monitors from the European Union who said there were "technical faults" marring the polls, but stopped short of saying whether or not the outcome of the election would be affected as a result.  Still, the charges fueled the anger of opposition parties seeking to win election at the helm of the country.

Meanwhile, the Independent National Electoral Committee (INEC) refrained from furnishing  preliminary results, saying  that it preferred to wait for full results before publication.  Days later, it was announced that  former prime minister Cellou Dalein Diallo won 39.72 percent of the ballots, followed by Alpha Conde, the opposition leader,  with 20.67 percent, and then  Sidya Toure, another former prime minister, with 15.6 percent.

With no one candidate expected to win an outright victory on June 27, 2010, a run-off election was expected to take place on July 18, 2010 between the two top vote getters -- Diallo and Conde.  But on July 9, 2010, it was announced that the second round of the election would be postponed, with no new date determined by the electoral commission.  Nevertheless, candidates were primed for the final vote with an alliance of 12 losing candidates from the first round banding together to close ranks around Conde and against Diallo.  Since they were from small political parties receiving only a small portion of the vote count in the first round, it was not known if they would have a decisive effect in Conde's favor in the second round.

On Aug. 6, 2010, the country's Supreme Court empowered the electoral commission to issue a moratorium on the second round of the presidential election. The decision was intended to ensure that all the necessary preparations could be made to ensure the run-off would occur smoothly. In its decision, the Supreme Court said that polling stations had to be made more accessible, ballots had to be printed, and other voting materials had to be made available to voters at home and abroad. Then on Aug. 9, 2010, it was announced that the new date for the run-off election would be Sept. 19, 2010.

Once the winner has been determined, it was hoped that the country would transition from rule by National Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD) military junta to the new democratically-elected president. Should the election and the transition ensue with limited challenges, it would be a remarkable achievement for a country beset by military regimes, coups, strongman leadership and autocratic rule throughout its post-colonial period.

Africa: Cote d'Ivoire

Prime Minister Soro of Cote d'Ivoire says presidential election could be held in October

On July 14, 2010, Prime Minister Guillaume Soro of Cote d'Ivoire announced that the country's much-anticipated presidential election could well be be held in October 2010. In an interview with the publication Notre Afrik, Prime Minister Guillaume Soro said, "This election should be held latest by October." Only days before, the country's Independent Electoral Commission (CEI) was handed a new provisional electoral list, setting the stage for voters to go to the polls. On the matter of the electoral commission, the prime minister said, "If we take into account the time it will take to verify and sort out all electoral disputes, say 21 days, we can confidently expect that the final list will be published within two months." He also added, "If everything goes according to plan, then we can say that organization of presidential elections will just be a matter of weeks." By August 2010, it was announced that the long overdue presidential election would be held on Oct. 31, 2010. The presidential election in Cote d'Ivoire has long been regarded as an integral part of the 2007 peace accord in a country wracked by political chaos and instability since 2002.
 
Editor's Note:

Cote d'Ivoire, also known as  Ivory Coast, was conflict-ridden terrain after rebels from the mainly northern part of the country seized control of that region in an attempted coup d'etat in 2002. At that time, the country devolved into a crisis in 2002 when the New Forces rebels took control of the northern part of the country.  Since then, the country has been divided between supporters of the president in the south and rebels in the north.  The plan to disarm the rebels in the north and the pro-Gbagbo militias in the south was largely unsuccessful.  Meanwhile, French and United Nations troops tasked with keeping the peace between the two sides complained they were not properly provided with resources to do their job effectively. Meanwhile, a transitional government was established to govern affairs; however, rebels eschewed Gbagbo's extended rule, while pro-Gbagbo supporters railed against its imminent end.  That said,  there were high hopes for a shift in the political landscape following the signing of the 2007 peace accord, which put into place a power-sharing government, as well as plans for disarmament and future elections. This accord was viewed as having a strong chance of success because of the direct involvement of President Gbagbo and former rebel leader, Guillaume Soro, who was now serving as prime minister.  The repeatedly delayed elections has been  a test of Cote d'Ivoire's emerging political stability.  As of mid-2010, elections were yet to take place, however, an  election date was set for October 2010.


Africa: Tanzania

Tanzania gears up for general elections

On Aug. 20, 2010, Tanzania's rival political parties commenced a two-month election campaign ahead of that country's general elections, scheduled for Oct. 31, 2010. While there were 12 presidential contenders, the National Electoral Commission (NEC) announced that only seven of them had met the necessary requirements ahead of the August 19, 2010 deadline. The main presidential contender was to be incumbent President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete who was seeking re-election for a second five-year term. It should be noted that according to the Tanzanian constitution, a person can hold the presidency for only two terms. While President Kikwete's Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) party has long dominated Tanzania's political scene, he was nonetheless expected to face tough competition from the opposition parties, many of which were fielding strong competitors for the country's top political office. Among the strongest presidential contenders was Willibrod Slaa of the Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo ( CHADEMA) party, and Ibrahim Lipumba, the chairmain of the Civic United Front (CUF). Other candidates included Hashim Rungwe of NCCR-Mageuzi, Peter Mziray of the African Progressive Party of Tanzania (APPT), Mutamwega Mugahywa of the Tanzania Labour Party (TLP), and Fahma Dovutwa of the United People's Democratic Party (UPDP). Ahead of election day, most of the candidates were emphasizing politics free of corruption.

Also at stake on election day would be the presidency of Zanzibar Islands, which is part of the United Republic of Tanzania. The main candidates were Tanzanian Vice President Ali Mohamed Shein, of the ruling CCM party, and his main rival, Seif Shariff Hamad of the CUF. The election would come a month after a referendum decided that a government of national unity should be formed, in a bid to avert the kind of political violence that has plagued the islands in the past.


Africa: Central African Republic

New date tabled for highly anticipated presidential election in Central African Republic

In March 2010, Central African Republic President Francois Bozize signed a decree  postponing the presidential and parliamentary elections  in that country from April 25, 2010 to May 16, 2010.  The new timeline appeared to have been advanced in a proposal by  the Independent Electoral Commission (CEI), and called for the election campaign to ensue between  April 30, 2010 and May 14, 2010. Opposition parties have urged a longer delay, arguing that conditions in Central African Republic  were not conducive to the holding of free and fair elections.  They have said that the preparation of electoral lists would require more time, and that the implementation of the disarmament program has been slow to take hold. Indeed, these concerns have been echoed by the international community with several foreign diplomats also endorsing the idea of postponing the elections, while also  establishing a consensual extension of Bozize's term in office (currently set to expire in June 2010). But President Bozize has not been amenable to the notion of an election delay.  He has said that such a move could pave the way for a  constitutional vacuum, which could itself destabilize the country.

Nevertheless, by late April 2010, reports from the Central African Republic made clear that elections now scheduled for May 16, 2010, were being postponed indefinitely for the reasons outlined above.  The president called on the National Assembly to make legal arrangements aimed at avoiding a constitutional vacuum following the expiration of the  mandates of the head of state and parliamentarians on June 11, 2010.  To that end, the National Assembly approved the term extension of the country's president and parliament members, with an eye on avoiding a power chasm.

On June 3, 2010, the  Independent Electoral Commission of the Central African Republic put forth a new timetable for presidential and legislative elections, along with plans to revise the electoral lists, register candidates,  and distribute electors' cards.  Then on July 30, 2010, a new date for the presidential election was announced; voters were to go to the polls on January 23, 2011 to vote in the presidential election.  The country's electoral commission noted that it was still awaiting the release of funds from the international financia donors to have the elections.  Earlier, the president of the electoral commission, Joseph Binguimale, said: "No funding, no elections."


Completed elections:

Pacific: Australia

Australian election results in hung parliament; PM Gillard looks to independents to form government

Summary --

Parliamentary elections were held in Australia on Aug. 21, 2010. While Prime Minister Julia Gillard's Labor Party lost its majority in the lower house, Tony Abbott's conservatives were not handed a victory either. The inconclusive election result, which took the shape of a "hung parliament," meant that coalition negotiations were in the offing, with the Greens and independents positioned to play political kingmakers.

Background --

In late June 2010, a leadership vote within Australia's ruling Labor Party led to the indirect ousting of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as the head of government. Typically, the leader of the party in power is the prime minister; thus, with Rudd out as the party leader, he was also out as prime minister. Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard was chosen as the new party chief and soon thereafter, she was sworn into power as Australia's first female prime minister.

For his part, Rudd decided against participating in the leadership ballot, knowing that his defeat would be imminent. Indeed, Rudd has suffered from a precipitous decline in his approval rating in 2010, largely in line with the decrease in support for the Labor Party. Rudd had been regarded as one of Australia's most popular leaders, making his shift in political fortune all the more shocking. At issue have been a number of controversies surrounding a carbon trading scheme and a mining tax. These two controversies ultimately lead to sliding support for Rudd's government. In fact, Rudd was branded as lacking political courage after he decided to shelve an emissions trading scheme -- the centerpiece of his environmental strategy. Then, he alienated the country's resource sector when he proposed a "super tax" on the profits of the mining sector.

In a tearful exit speech, Rudd said, "I have given it my absolute all and in that spirit I am proud of the achievements we have delivered to make this country fairer." To that end, Rudd emphasized his role in the economic stewardship of the country saying, "I'm proud of the fact that we kept Australia out of the global financial crisis." He continued, "I'm proud of the fact that had we not done so, we would have had half a million Australians out there out of work."

Newly-inaugurated Prime Minister Gillard paid tribute to his predecessor saying that Rudd had guided the country through the global financial crisis. Perhaps intending to show her willingness to earn legitimacy and authority as the head of government, Gillard took the unusual stance of refusing to move in to the official residence of the prime minister until she was elected to office in her own right. Meanwhile, Gillard indicated cognizance of the political realities facing her party saying that she believed "a good government was losing its way." She also promised to rehabilitate the Labor Party's standing ahead of a general election expected to take place in October 2010. To this end, Gillard said, "I believe too I have a responsibility to make sure at the next election that Labor is there at its strongest." But opposition Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott dismissed the notion that new leadership at the helm of the Labor Party would improve prospects at the polls.

Upon taking power, Gillard concentrated the very issues that led to Rudd's political demise -- the controversial mining tax and the carbon trading scheme aimed at fighting climate change. On the first issue, she saw some success, having successfully forged an agreement with miners on a less onerous tax. Her plans to deal with global warming were yet to be seen and would likely face strong opposition from the conservative opposition, which has vociferously opposed the very idea of a carbon emissions trading scheme.

The pre-election landscape --

On July 16, 2010, only weeks after succeeding Rudd, all indications pointed to an election in Australia being called by Prime Minister Gillard. Reports on the ground in Australia suggested that Prime Minister Gillard would visit with Governor General Quentin Bryce in Canberra to call for the dissolution of parliament, setting the stage for elections. While speculation abounded about particular dates, Prime Minister Gillard refused to comment on the matter saying only, "I am not engaging in election speculation. But whenever the election is called it will be a very clear choice about whether Australia moves forward or back." Soon thereafter, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that elections would be held on Aug. 21, 2010. The head of government also warned that it would be a close election.

The main battle would be between Prime Minister Gillard's center-left Labor Party and Tony Abbott's conservative Liberal Party. While the Labor Party's popularity had slipped under Rudd, it experienced a rebound since Gillard took power. A week before the election date was announced, a Nielsen and Galaxy opinion poll gave Labor a narrow 52-48 percent lead over the opposition Liberal-National coalition. Marginal seats in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria were expected to play a key role in determining election victory.

Meanwhile, it was conceivable that the Labor Party would be helped by the Australian Greens who directed its supporters to back the other left leaning party in the lower house of parliament. In return, the Labor Party instructed its supporters to back the Greens in the Senate level elections. The deal was aimed at shoring up support for the Labor Party, since it would have to hold on to a number of marginal seats in the lower house, which determines control of government. But the Greens would also gain an electoral benefit since they could well be positioned to hold the balance of power in the upper chamber from 2011. In this way, the preference deal could be interpreted as an agreement with potential --albeit not guaranteed -- benefits for both parties.

A Newspoll on July 19, 2010, found that if the preference deal was factored into the equation, the Labor Party was polling at 55 percent in compared to the conservative Liberal Party-led coalition with 45 percent. As well, Gillard was identified as the preferred prime minister over Abbott by a wide margin -- 57 percent to 27 percent -- according to the same poll. Meanwhile, the Greens would very likely become the most important player in the Senate, should this polling data translate into actual votes on election day.

The Greens noted that their main reason for entering the electoral alliance with Labor was due to that party's acceptance that climate change has been a real and dangerous threat, as compared with the conservatives' denials of the pressing existential threat of global warming. On this particular issue, which has factored so highly on the Australian political landscape in recent times, Prime Minister Gillard promised to unveil a strong climate change policy ahead of the elections. Another key election issue has surrounded the former Howard government "Work Choices" or deregulation program. Conservatives have said that the deregulation program improved employment levels, however, unions argued that it deleteriously affected workers. Clearly, conservative versus progressive approaches to employment policies would also continue to dominate the election scene.

Note that by the start of August 2010, a Newspoll survey showed the conservative coalition drawing even with Labor ahead of the elections. While, Gillard remained the preferred choice as prime minister, at the party level, the conservatives were gaining steam and momentum was not on the side of Labor. Indeed, in the weeks just prior to the election, polling data forecast a remarkably close election with Abbott's conservatives putting up a heated fight to the finish.

Profiles of the two main rivals --

Prime Minister Gillard, as noted above, defeated Kevin Rudd in an internal Labor Party coup. Born in the United Kingdom, her family relocated to Australia when she was a child. She is a trained as an industrial lawyer and has the distinction of being Australia's first head of government. Viewed as a pragmatist with a keen intellect, she has faced criticism from social conservatives because she cohabitates with her partner and does not have children.

Liberal leader Tony Abbott once trained as a Catholic priest; this background was thought to have contributed to his conservative social views on issues including abortion and same-sex marriage. Known for his rhetorical gaffes and penchant for swearing, he earned the nickname, "the mad monk." On policy, he has been established as being a climate change skeptic.

The election --

By mid-August 2010, Prime Minister Gillard had launched her election campaign in Brisbane by borrowing the rhetoric of United States President Barack Obama. Gillard offered a "yes we will" promise to assist the Australian workforce and transform health care in Australia. Gillard also argued that under the stewardship of the Labor government, Australia was the only advanced economy to avoid recession in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Whether or not the rhetoric and the economic message would find resonance on election day was yet to be seen.
 
Liberal leader Tony Abbott sought to exploit the internal divisions within the Labor Party following the ousting of Rudd in favor of Gillard. Abbott presented his conservative coalition as a stable alternative to an incumbent party mired by power struggles. On policy, Abbott promised stricter reins on immigration, a reduction of government spending, and silence on climate change. It was yet to be seen if these tactic would yield political dividends for the conservatives.

Election day – Aug. 21, 2010 -- finally arrived and the Australian citizenry went to the polls. At stake were all 150 seats of the lower house of parliament and half of the Senate's 76 seats. Despite widespread apathy about elections, voting is compulsory in Australian, so the result would nonetheless result the will of the people. With the ballots counted, the picture of an inconclusive election outcome began to take shape. Indeed, neither of the two main parties won the 76 seats needed for outright victory in the lower house that determines the formation of government. Labor had essentially lost a number of marginal seats in Queensland and New South Wales and had approximately 72 seats; the conservatives had at least 70 seats. (It should be noted that as the counting continnued, the tally moved to both Labor and the conservatives relatively deadlocked with 71-72 seats seats with a handful of seats undecided. As well, the Greens won a seat while three independents candidates gained representation in the lower house. In this way, Australia was faced with its first hung parliament since World War II, with neither party positioned with a majority of seats to form a government.

For her part, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the election result was "too close to call." She conjured up the words of former United States President Bill Clinton in noting, "The people have spoken but it's going to take some time to determine exactly what they have said." Prime Minister Gillard acknowledged that neither party won the election, stating, "It is clear that neither party has earned the right to government in its own right." In a bid to maximize the political benefits to her party, Gillard observed that Labor had won the most votes overall nationally, if the minor parties were taken out of the equation.

But her rival for the job of head of government, Tony Abbott, said that his conservative coalition was "back of business," declaring that Gillard's Labor Party had lost its legitimacy along with its majority. Abbott had a celebratory tone as he asserted, "This is a night for pride in our achievements, satisfaction at the good results that have been achieved, but also a measure of reflection on the magnitude of the task ahead." He also warned against "premature triumphalism."

Post-election landscape --

While it was clear that Gillard and Labor had lost its governing majority, it was also apparent that voters had stopped short of handing victory to Abbott and the conservatives. Given this inconclusive election result and the need for control over at least 76 seats in the 150-seat lower house of parliament, a process of crafty negotiations was in the offing, with the Greens and independents positioned to play political kingmakers.

In a bid to hold onto power, Prime Minister Gillard looked to independents and the lone Green to join with her in forming a government. To that end, she said: "What we know is there will be a number of independents in the House of Representatives playing a role as the next government of Australia is formed." She also acknowledged a period of uncertainty in the immediate future, but pledged to hold on to power saying, "There are anxious days ahead, but I will keep fighting."

Prime Minister Gillard reportedly held initial talks with the independent candidates. Describing this consultative process in an interview with the media, she said, "Negotiations will be conducted with propriety, integrity and diligence." She also said, "It's my intention to negotiate in good faith an effective agreement to form government." The prime minister also promised that in the interim period, she and her outgoing cabinet would "continue to provide stable and effective government in accordance with our democratic process while the final votes are counted in this election."

On the other side of the equation, Abbott made known that he was also contacting the independent candidates who were former members of conservative parties. Perhaps in an effort to make his case for forming a conservative government, Abbott again emphasized that the election outcome showed movement away from Labor. He said, "There was a savage swing against this government." Musing about the possibility that he could become the new prime minister, he said, "I feel humbled as I think of the responsibilities that could lie ahead." He also emphasized the need for "competent and stable government for the next three years" in Australia, arguing as he had during the election period that Labor was too bedeviled by infighting to provide governing stability.

Two of the independent candidates -- Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor -- said they would be willing to join with the party capable of forming the most stable government. Bob Katter, the third independent, made clear that he was interested in negotiating a deal that would best benefit his constituents.

By Aug. 26, 2010, the favor of the independents appeared to tilt slightly in Prime Minister Gillard's favor after Tony Abbott expressed unwillingness to disclose its plan for the Treasury. That demand for more information about Treasury costs and expenditures came after a document was leaked to the media indicating a shortfall. Abbott said he would only submit Treasury policy details when an investigation into the leak was completed. Two independents in particular -- Windsor and Katter -- appeared outraged by Abbott's stance, saying it suggested that the opposition had something to hide. By contrast, the federal treasurer, Wayne Swan of Labor Party, said that the Gillard government would willingly provide any information needed to help the independents in making a decision on whom to support at the helm of a minority government. Meanwhile, the lone Green -- Alan Brandt -- indicated that he was interested in backing a Labor-led minority government.

Editor's Note:

As a constitutional monarchy, Australia's system of government requires the head of government (the prime minister) to ask the head of state (the governor general, Queen Elizabeth II's official representative) to call an election at least 33 days before voters go to the polls. At stake were the seats in the lower House of Representatives and half of the seats of the Senate. The party winning the parliamentary elections would be positioned to form a government, with the leader of that party becoming the prime minister, as noted above.


Asia: Japan

Prime Minister Kan's DPJ loses control of upper house following parliamentary election in Japan

On July 11, 2010, Japanese voters went to the polls to vote in parliamentary elections. At stake were half the seats in the 242-member upper house of parliament, known as the Sangi-in or House of Councilors.

The outcome of the elections would not impact the ruling  Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)'s grip on power, since the prime minister is chosen by the lower house where the DPJ held an overwhelming majority of seats.  Nevertheless, the elections constituted something of a referendum on the DPJ, which  won a landslide election victory  in 2009, ending half a century of conservative rule in Japan, but which has since suffered declining support. The slide in approval was attributable to a failure to make good on a promise to  move an American  Marine base off Okinawa, as well as voters' frustration with ongoing scandals despite the change in government. With an eye on recapturing public approval and validation at the polls, Prime Minister  Yukio Hatoyama  resigned from power in June 2010, and was succeeded by Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who -- at the time -- promised to rehabilitate the stature of the DPJ and guide the party through these elections.

But Prime Minister Kan has had to contend with a Japanese economy in a precarious position, on the brink of a debt crisis. In fact, Japan's debt was twice the size of its gross domestic product, making it one of the industrialized world's most disturbing "debt-to-GDP"  ratios. Upon coming to power, Prime Minister Kan warned  that the country's  fiscal policies could not endure by  relying on the issuance of government bonds.  As expected, Prime Minister Kan  advocated increases to consumption tax among other austerity measures needed to rein in spiraling debt.  What might be effective in terms of responsible governance may not always translate into success in the political  sphere.  Indeed, despite their perceived necessity, taxes and austerity measures rarely are welcomed by a country's citizenry.  Thus, there were questions about the political acuity of emphasizing these policy agenda items ahead of the elections, even though Prime Minister Kan reduced the fiscal rhetoric in the days ahead of the elections.

On July 11, 2010, it was apparent that Prime Minister Kan's objectives of rehabilitating the stature of the DPJ and guiding the party through the elections were not achieved.  Polling data prior to election day indicated that the DPJ would win only 50 seats -- five less than needed to maintain the status quo.  With the votes counted, it was clear that the DPJ underperformed even the pollsters' expectations by winning between 44 and 48 seats. Including the uncontested seats, the DPJ would now have control of a  total of approximately 106 to 110 seats in the upper house -- clearly short of the 122 needed to command a majority.  The  opposition Liberal Democratic Party won 51 seats and, in conjunction with allied smaller parties, was able to win control over the upper chamber.

Taking responsibility for his party's poor performance at the polls, Prime Minister Kan said, "I sincerely and humbly accept this result."  But he also indicated he would not relent in pressing for reform and austerity measures saying,  "I will continue to push for responsible government."


Europe: Netherlands

Center-right Liberals in laborious government formation process in Netherlands; anti-Islam party expected to influence political scene

Dutch voters went to the polls on June 9, 2010, to vote in early parliamentary elections. Months earlier, the coalition government, led by Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's center-right Christian Democratic Party, collapsed as a result of disagreements regarding troop deployments to Afghanistan. At the heart of the matter were objections by the center-left Labor Party to the NATO request for Dutch forces to remain in Afghanistan beyond 2010. Irreconcilable differences on this issue led the Labor Party's decision to exit the ruling coalition, effectively bringing down Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's government. Soon thereafter, the June 9, 2010, date was set for fresh elections to be held one year ahead of schedule.

At stake on election day were the 150 seats of the Tweede Kamer or lower chamber. On June 9, 2010, with the votes counted, it was clear that Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's center-right Christian Democratic Party was going down to defeat. Indeed, the prime minister's party saw its seats in parliament plummet to a historic low of only 21 seats. Meanwhile, the center-right, pro-business, Liberal Party or Mark Rutte won the plurality of seats -- 31 in the 150-seat parliament. But the center-left Labor Party of Job Cohen had a strong performance as well, winning only one seat less than the Liberals -- 30 in the 15o-seat parliament. Meanwhile, the anti-Islam Freedom Party of Geert Wilders enjoyed its best finish ever with 24 seats.

Following the election, Balkenende said that he took responsibility for his party's defeat, which he described as "disappointing," resigned his seat, and stepped down as leader of the Christian Democrats. As he ended his tenure as prime minister and exited the political field, Balkenende said: "I have informed the party chairman that I will lay down my party membership with immediate effect."

With the Freedom Party on an upward swing, and with voters favoring the pro-business Liberals, it was clear that Dutch voters were making a turn to the political right culturally and economically. Indeed, the election result appeared to reflect the Dutch citizenry's concerns about immigrants from Muslim countries and the rising national debt respectively.

As the party that won the most seats -- albeit by an ultra-slim margin -- Liberal leader Rutte likely had the first chance to try to form a coalition government with smaller parties. Boc's center-left Labor Party could potentially return to government as a partner in whatever coalition emerged due to a clear stamp of approval from the voters at the polls. Other parties expected to participate in what was being called "the purple coalition" were the Green Left and Liberal Democrats. Despite the Freedom Party's increased presence in parliament, some analysts said that it was unlikely that it would be sought out as a desirable coalition partner. This was because its leader, Wilders, was set to face a criminal trial on charges of inciting hatred and discrimination in relation to his anti-Islamic film titled, "Fitna." Nevertheless, there were hopes for the formation of a right-wing coalition; whether or not the Freedom Party would be a player in such an alliance was yet to be seen.

Coalition talks were expected to take several weeks to conclude. All expectations at the time were that Rutte was likely to end up being the Netherlands' next prime minister at the helm of the some coalition of parties -- possible coalition partners ranged from far right to left. In terms of policy, Rutte has called for austere budget cuts and decreased government bureaucracy, with an eye on reducing the deficit. He has also advocated reduced benefits for immigrants. It was yet to be seen if these agenda items would remain intact at the conclusion of the coalition building process.

By June 17, 2010, reports had emerged that negotiations on the formation of a right-wing coalition ended in failure. The participants in these talks were Rutte's Liberals, Balkenende's Christian Democrats, and the anti-Islam Freedom Party. Wilders of the Freedom Party blamed the Christian Democratic leader, Maxime Verhagen, for the failure of the talks. However, Verhagen made it clear that his party would not participate at the negotiating table with the other two parties until they were able to reach clear consensus on pressing issues from the economy to identity cards. Now, with the right-wing coalition prospect waning, a broader coalition with a  centrist  orientation was possible, drawing coalition partners from the political left and right.  However, weeks later, negotiations to form a coalition that would include the Liberals and Labor failed due to disagreements on economic policy.

By the close of July 2010, the coalition-building process had turned into something of a roller coaster ride with efforts now resting once again on the idea of a right-wing coalition.  As before,  the key parties included the  Liberals, the Christian Democrats and the Freedom Party.  The renewed possibility of a right-wing coalition came as a result of the Christian Democrats' withdrawal of objections to informal talks with the Freedom Party.  Such a coalition would command only the smallest majority in parliament -- 76 of 150 seats -- and would therefore require close coordination. Reports were that although the three parties would be aligned in governance, the Freedom Party would not hold any cabinet seats. The proposed provisional agreement outlined the Freedom Party's "support role," and made clear that Wilder's  anti-Islam Freedom Party would have to be consulted on policy decisions made by the new government. At the time of writing, coalition talks were still ongoing and the final structure of the incoming Dutch government was unknown.


Europe: Poland

Komorowski wins run-off election with late President Kaczynski's twin and becomes new Polish head of state

Following the death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski and several other Polish leaders in a catastrophic airplane crash in Russia on April 10, 2010, he was buried in a crypt of the historic Wawel Cathedral in Krakow. Meanwhile, in accordance with constitutional provisions, the speaker of the lower house of parliament, Bronislaw Komorowski, was functioning as the country's acting president.

Soon, however, early elections would be held to fill the position of president, who is the head of state in a country where that role is separate from the prime minister's role as head of government. To that end, it was announced that the first round of the Polish presidential election would be set on June 20, 2010, with a second round, if necessary, to be held on July 4, 2010.

Parliamentary Speaker and acting President Bronislaw Komorowski of Civic Platform was favored to win the elections. Viewed as more pro-Europe and more conciliatory toward Russia than his predecessor, Komorowski has been regarded the internationalist choice of head of state with a centrist political orientation. His main opponent was Lech Kaczynski's twin brother, former Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski of the Law and Justice party, who has been viewed as an outspoken conservative hard-liner. Eight other individuals also contested the election. If no one garnered a majority with 50 percent of the vote share, then a run-off election would be held, as noted above, among the top two vote-getters.

On election day, with the votes counted, exit polls indicated that Komorowski would win the most votes -- 46 percent -- but just short of the 50 percent needed for an outright victory. He would contest the second round on July 4, 2010 against Kaczynski who garnered second place with 36 percent.

During the second round or run-off election on July 4, 2010, as expected, Bronislaw Komorowski, candidate of the Polish ruling party Civic Platform, claimed victory with 53.01 percent of the vote.  Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the twin brother of late President Lech Kaczynski and leader of the conservative Law and Justice Party, garnered the rest of the votes.

Political analysts attributed Komorowski's success at the polls to the positive image of the ruling Civic Platform of Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who was also party leader.  Under Tusk's leadership, the Civic Platform has guided Poland through turbulent economic times.  Indeed,  Poland was the only European Union nation to see its economy grow since the global financial crisis of late 2008. As well, under Tusk's leadership, the Civic Platform improved bilateral ties with Germany and Russia, and demonstrated a more productive orientation within the European Union.  In the past, Poland under the conservative Law and Justice Party had taken a more hardline and nationalist approach to foreign affairs, which complicated relations with other countries in Europe.

But Komorowski was also the author of his own fate with political analysts pointing to his  electoral platform, which emphasized a  willingness to work with the cabinet.  This position was welcomed by the Polish people who were exhausted from the ongoing power struggles between the presidents and  prime ministers' governments through the years.  Komorowski's role as acting president after the death of Lech Kaczynski also helped cement the public's confidence in him.  He demonstrated a moderate  in the stewardship of national affairs, which was a sharp contrast to his  predecessor's more hardline positions.

Going forward, with Tusk as head of government, and Komorowski as head of state, it was expected that there would be some progress on a progress on a proposed plan to reform the country's political structure.  At issue has been Prime Minister Tusk's proposal to recraft  the constitution, weaken presidential powers, and accentuate the role of the cabinet.  It was believed that Tusk would find an ally in Komorowski to move forward with some of these changes.  As well,  on the international front, it was hoped that  Komorowski  could move Poland away from its "troublemaker" image.

Note that Komorowski was inaugurated into office as president a month after winning election victory. During his inauguration speech, the new Polish president promised to work for national unity. Foreign visits oriented toward showing Poland's European roots were announced for Belgium, France and Germany. At the same time, the new president emphasized that positive relations with Russia would also be a priority for him in the realm of foreign relations.

Editor's Note:

Poland has both a president and a prime minister within its executive branch of government. The president is the head of state and is elected to power for a five-year term by popular vote. The president is limited to two terms in office. The president's power is limited in regards to the day to day operations of government; the president is nonetheless is central to foreign policy, and possesses the power of legislative veto. Of course, a two-thirds majority in the lower house of parliament can overturn a presidential veto. The prime minister is the head of government. Typically, the leader of the party that controls parliament, the prime minister sets and administers the governing agenda of day to day affairs at the helm of a cabinet. That cabinet is proposed by the prime minister but must be formally appointed by the president, and approved by the parliament.


Europe: Germany

Wulff elected to succeed Koehler after three rounds of ballot voting in German presidential poll

On May 31, 2010,  German President Horst Kohler resigned from office in the wake of a controversy sparked by  his remarks about Germany's  military deployments.  At issue was Kohler's statement during a visit to German troops serving in Afghanistan days earlier, when he said that German soldiers were serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere to protect Germany's economic interests.  The specific cause of the controversy resided in the following remark: "A country of our size, with its focus on exports and thus reliance on foreign trade, must be aware that military deployments are necessary in an emergency to protect our interests, for example, when it comes to trade routes, for example, when it comes to preventing regional instabilities that could negatively influence our trade, jobs and incomes."  While Kohler subsequently expressed regret for the comments and the misunderstanding that they caused, he nonetheless decided it would be in the country's best interest to resign.  In a statement, Kohler said: "The criticism damaged the respect for my office. I announce my resignation, immediately. I hope you understand my decision. It was an honor to serve Germany."

On June 30, 2010, Christian Wulff, who had been nominated by Chancellor Merkel's coalition government, won the presidential election after three rounds of ballot voting in the Federal Assembly. Wulff failed to achieve and absolute majority on the first two ballots.  That being said, he finally garnered enough votes to win on the third attempt, effectively sparing Chancellor Merkel's coalition government political embarrassment. Indeed, the outcome of the first two ballots was a clear illustration of the lack of unity from within Merkel's ruling coalition. Wulff's  main competition came from Joachim Gauck, a pro-democracy activist who had been nominated by the major opposition party, and Luc Jochimsen of the Left party.

Editor's Note:

The president is elected every five years on May 23 by the "Bundesversammlung," a body convened only for this purpose, composed of an equal number of delegates from the "Bundestag" (lower chamber of the federal parliament) and the parliaments of the "Länder" (states). Presidents are elected for five-year terms and are limited to two consecutive terms.


Europe: Hungary

Schmitt wins Hungary's presidential vote

n June 25, 2010, Hungary's Parliament Speaker Pal Schmitt, and Andras Balogh, the ambassador to Thailand, were nominated as the main candidates for the country's indirect presidential election. Typically, presidents are chosen via a vote within the country's parliament. With the Fidesz party commanding an overwhelming majority of seats in the 386 seat-National Assembly, it was believed that its nominee, Schmitt, would end up being the winner. Balogh was the candidate nominated by the Socialists and despite support from all of the party's membership, was unlikely to see a victory. The vote was scheduled to take place on June 29, 2010. On that day, Schmitt was elected decisively as the country's new president. Schmitt received 263 ballots in the 386-member parliament, including votes from all from legislators in his Fidesz party. Balogh, his only opponent, received 59 votes.

Born in 1942 in Budapest, Schmitt was a two-time Olympic fencing champion who earned medals at the 1967 Olympics in Mexico and the 1972 games in Munich. Schmitt served as Hungary's ambassador to Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Andorra. He also served as vice president of the European Parliament. In 2003, he became deputy president of the centre-right Fidesz party. An economist by profession, Schmitt took the oath of office after the parliamentary vote and was took office on August 5, 2010, when outgoing President Laszlo Solyom's term in office.

While the office of the presidency has been considered a predominantly ceremonial role, the president is nonetheless imbued with the ability to make appointments and to return bills to parliament for reconsideration and delay legislation. As such, the president in Hungary is expected to function as a neutral player. Critics therefore have questioned Schmitt's strong allegiance to the Fidesz, arguing that it could weaken the traditional independence of the presidency. With an eye on silencing such critics, Schmitt said he would resign from the Fidesz party.


Europe: Slovak Republic

Fico's left-leaning SMER wins most seats but Radicova becomes first female prime minister

Elections in the Slovak Republic (variously referred to as Slovakia) were set to take place on June 12, 2010. At stake were the 150 members of the unicameral "Narodna Rada Slovenskej Republiky" or National Council of the Slovak Republic for terms of four years.

Ahead of those election, controversy was brewing over the release of a conversation purported to be that of Prime Minister Robert Fico. On that recording, a male voice is heard claiming that funds were procured "with his own head" for the party. At issue have been allegations published in the SME daily newspaper, which released the recording on its website, that Fico's SMER-SD [Direction-Social Democracy Party] laundered tens of millions of Slovak korunas. The allegations included claims that SMER-SD garnered the funds from its supporters ahead of the 2002 elections.

In response, Prime Minister Robert Fico convened an unscheduled news conference on June 10, 2010 -- just two days before the elections -- to announce his intent to file a lawsuit against Matus Kostolny, the editor-in-chief of the daily SME. In an angry diatribe before the media, Prime Minister Fico said of the allegations, "I confess that I do not know whether I am to laugh or cry." He then went onto blame the controversy on those who resent the fact "that Slovakia is progressing, that the ruling coalition resolves situations and that the country has favorable data." He dismissed the recording as "Dirt, dirt and once more dirt."

Kostolny noted that Fico's anger was misplaced saying, "We have nothing in common with the recording, we have obtained it and thus we inform about it and ask what will come next with it." Kostolny also dismissed Prime Minister Fico's accusations that the daily was using journalistic privilege to attack SMER-SD.

Meanwhile, the dissemination of the tape appeared to be traced back to the Christian Democrats. Party Deputy Chairman Daniel Lipsic expressly confirmed the existence of the audiotape in parliament, and it was reported that he submitted it to the office of the Prosecutor General as additional evidence in a criminal complaint filed by his own party against SMER-SD over the suspicious campaign funding.

Amidst these developments, the elections went off as scheduled. With the votes cast and counted on June 12, 2010, it was apparent that despite the aforementioned scandal, Prime Minister Fico's SMER-SD had garnered the plurality of the vote count, effectively winning the election with close to 35 percent of the vote and 62 of the 150 seats in parliament. However, its parliamentary allies suffered a poor showing and were at risk of not attaining the necessary five percent threshold. Consequently, there was speculation that the bloc would not be positioned to form a new government. In fact, the nationalist HZDS of former Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar failed to enter parliament. That being said, one ally -- the ultra-nationalist Slovak National Party -- did manage to cross the five percent threshold with 5.1 percent and captured nine seats. Together with SMER-SD's 62 seat, Fico's coalition would have a total of 71 seats -- a number slightly short of the 75 needed to control a majority in parliament.

Meanwhile, several centrist and right-wing parties were more likely to band together to form a coalition government. Key players within this bloc were SDKU-DS, led by Iveta Radicova, which had about 18 percent, Freedom and Solidarity (SaS), which garnered 11 percent, the Christian Democrats (KDH), which acquired nine percent and an ethnic-Hungarian party, Most-Hid, which secured about six percent. Together, a four-party center-right grouping could conceivably control 79 of the 150 seats in parliament. Clearly, that number was slightly more than the 75 needed to control a majority in parliament.

Nevertheless, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico made a bid to form the government, with President Ivan Gasparovic saying that he was inclined to oblige Prime Minister Fico by giving him the first chance to form a government. President Gasparovic said his decision was based on respect for the tradition of giving the leader of the largest party in parliament the first chance to form a new government. Should Fico fail in this attempt, then Radicova could be poised to become the country's first female prime minister.

On June 15, 2010, reports emerged that Fico was prepared to offer the post of prime minister, along with half of the cabinet posts, to the Christian Democrats, with an eye on forming a coalition government. Along with the Christian Democrats, SMER-SD would be part of a parliamentary majority. Such a coalition would also foreclose the possibility of the aforementioned centrist-rightist coalition of several parties by bringing the Christian Democrats into Fico's fold. This option might be attractive to the Christian Democrats because they would be part of a two-party coalition, their leader Jan Figel would hold the prime minister's post, and they would wield far more political power and stability than otherwise.

By June 23, 2010, it was apparent that Fico's attempts to craft a ruling coalition would not end successfully as President Ivan Gasparovic had invited Iveta Radicova to form a new government. Radicova had already announced that she had forged a parliamentary majority through a coalition of four center-right parties -- her SKDU-DS, Freedom and Solidarity (SaS), the Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) and Most-Hid -- which had agreed to a common policy program. To that end, the coalition would concentrate on prudent management of public finances, fighting corruption, and improvements to the judiciary. Left outside the policy agenda were issues apt to cause controversy and dissention, such as legalization of marijuana and same-sex registered partnerships. Speaking of the prospect of becoming the new prime minister, Radicova said, "I'm extremely honored to accept the task of forming a government. I'll do my utmost to make sure that the government will be a government for citizens, an open one, which will be able to say that it has been a successful one after four years."

On July 8, 2010,  President Gasparovic officially appointed Radicova as prime minister at the helm of the aforementioned center-right coalition government.  In so doing, Radicova now held the distinction of being Slovakia's first female prime minister.


Europe: Czech Republic

After election, caretaker Czech PM Fischer resigns; Necas asked to form coalition government

In March 2009, incumbent Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek had lost a no-confidence vote, essentially bringing down that government. At the close of the month, Social Democratic Party leader Jiri Paroubek and Topolanek of the Civic Democratic Party agreed both to hold early polls, as well as the formation of an interim government. That new interim government was led by consensus figure, Jan Fischer, who took responsibility for governance in May 2009. An election was expected later in the year but was delayed. Topolanek and his foremost political rival, Paroubek, in a rare event of concurrence, responded negatively to the decision to postpone the elections. Of significance was the fact that the elections were intended to bring a period of political instability to an end. Ultimately, elections were set for the close of May 2010.

On March 25, 2010, former Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek was forced to withdraw from the upcoming general elections when some of his controversial remarks were leaked to the media. At issue were private remarks made by Topolanek in which he reportedly said, that "the (Christian) church has got control of people by means of brainwashing." Also deemed problematic was his characterization of Transport Minister Gustav Slamecka -- known to be homosexual -- as one who tended to "give up easily" when faced with difficulty. He then went on to compare Slamecka to Jewish Prime Minister Jan Fischer as follows: "Fischer is simply a Jew -- he is not a gay -- and he gives up even earlier (than Slamecka)." Topolanek apologized for his remarks, making the claim that they were taken out of context.

In addition to withdrawing from the elections, Topolanek recommended former labor and social affairs minister, Petr Necas, to lead the Civil Democratic Party into the elections. To this end, he said, "The decision we made is pragmatic and correct" given the focus on the elections and not this controversy. Should the Civic Democrats win the elections set for May 28-29, 2010, then Necas would become prime minister. However, Topolanek stopped short of resigning from the official post of party chairman despite calls for him to do so.

Polling data ahead of elections showed the opposition Social Democrats, led by Parobek, with a modest but consistent lead ahead of the Civic Democrats, now led by Necas. Indeed, with the ballots counted, it was clear that the outcome was consistent with the polling data. Jiri Paroubek's left-wing Czech Social Democratic Party won the general elections with 22.1 percent of the vote. The center-right Civic Democrats of Petr Necas captured 20.2 percent of the vote.

While they came up short compared to the Social Democrats, the Civic Democrats were better positioned to form a stable coalition with other right-wing parties who also won representation in the lower house of Czech parliament. Together with the party, Public Affairs, and Top-09, the Civic Democrats could command a clear majority in parliament -- the very grounds for the formation of a government.

For strategic reasons, Parobek said he would resign from his party post and turn negotiating powers over to Deputy Chairman Bohuslav Sobotka. At issue was the fact that leaders of other parties with whom a coalition might be formed said that they preferred another negotiating partner. Indeed, Paroubek's populist orientation has resonated with some, while his confrontational style and cooperative relationship with the Communists repelled others. Clearly, Paroubek wanted to ensure that his party would have the best possible chance to form a government. That being said, even Sobotka admitted that his task would be a difficult one.

On May 30, 2010, with the question of government formation at hand, Czech President Vaclav Klaus reportedly invited the leaders of all parties that won seats in the Chamber of Deputies for consultations at Prague Castle. In a demonstration of respect for the party that won the election, President Klaus commenced his consultations with Sobotka of the Social Democrats. The general consensus was that if Sobotka indicated that he would not be able to form a government, that task would then default onto the Civic Democrats.

Days later on June 2, 2010, it was clear that despite having won the most votes, the Social Democrats were still not in a position to form the next government of the Czech Republic. In fact, the party leadership had yet to decide whether it should try to form a governing coalition at all, or, if it should simply accept the role of opposition party. On the same day, the Civic Democrats announced that it had formed a coalition with Public Affairs and Top-09, as expected. President Klaus was reportedly trying to determine if the coalition, headed by Necas, would be a stable on, or, if it was an "experiment" intended to secure the reins of power. Indeed, there were reports that despite a general agreement on forming a coalition government, the three parties were having trouble reaching consensus on control over the finance minister's portfolio.

By June 25, 2010, Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer submitted his government's resignation to President Vaclav Klaus. While the government would remain at the helm while the coalition talks (discussed above) were ongoing, Fischer noted that the administration would function only in a caretaker capacity. Meanwhile, Fischer was eyeing a future beyond political policy at the helm of the Czech government. To that end, Fischer was being linked with the position of vice-president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

On June 28, 2010, Czech President Vaclav Klaus named Petr Necas to be the country's new prime minister and called on him to form a government. To that end, President Klaus said , "I am assured that this high authority is in the right hands." He continued, "I am assured that you will be able to form a government in short time." For his part, Necas leader of the Civic Democratic Party, who was set to form a coalition with TOP 09 and Public Affairs, said that there was a pressing need to stabilize the state budget and to end the political feuds between parties.


Europe: Belgium

Flemish separatists the biggest winner in Belgium's parliamentary elections

On April 22, 2010, Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned from office following the withdrawal of the Flemish Liberals and Democrats or Open VLD party from the ruling coalition. At issue was Open VLD's claim that it was frustrated by the government's lack of progress in resolving the ongoing dissonance between the country's respective French-speaking and Dutch-speaking communities. With the Flemish party's exit from the governing coalition, Leterme only had control of 76 of the 150 seats of the lower house of parliament. While 76 seats still gave him a razor slim majority, governing would likely prove to be challenging. Accordingly, as noted by Belgian Finance Minister Didier Reynders, there was no choice but for the prime minister to step down from power.

As was the case when Prime Minister Leterme previously tendered his resignation, it was not known whether King Albert II would accept his move to step down. The answer to that question came when King Albert II refused to immediately accept the letter of resignation. On April 24, 2010, he called for urgent negotiations between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking parties, with an eye on reconstituting Prime Minister Leterme's government. According to a statement from the palace, the Belgian monarch requested that Finance Minister Didier Reynders play the role of mediator. The Belgian monarch intimated the generalized anxieties across the country that his country's reputation in the European Union (EU) was at stake, given the fact that Belgium was scheduled to take the reins of the EU's rotating presidency on July 1, 2010. Despite King Albert II's last resort attempt to revive Leterme's government, the endeavor ended in failure when Reynders asked to be relieved of his mediation duties. Accordingly, King Albert II accepted the resignation of Prime Minister Yves Leterme's government, which had been spurred by the collapse of the ruling coalition.

On June 13, 2010, Belgians went to the polls to cast their votes in fresh parliamentary elections. With the votes cast and counted, it was apparent that the Flemish separatist party, Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie or New Flemish Alliance (NVA), was likely to become the largest force in 150-seat parliament, with 27 seats. The French-speaking Socialists were headed for gains of their own with a close second place finish and 26 seats. The result augured negative consequences for Leterme's coalition of Christian Democrats, Liberals and Socialists.

Attention, though, was on the NVA, led by Bart De Wever, who has been a strong advocate of fully dividing the country along linguistic lines between Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia. The linguistic debate has dominated the political landscape of Belgium for some time with the country's Flemish majority expressly resentful of the government aid extended to the economically-challenged Wallonia. Consequently, there has been an increasing clamor for systemic reform to address this grievance. The performance of De Wever's NVA at the polls in these 2010 elections gave sanction to the will of majority Flemish population.

That being said, for De Wever to lead a government, he would have to form a coalition with Wallonian parties since Belgian governments must be composed of bilingual coalitions of at least four parties. Such a process promised to be laborious and difficult. Indicating that his preference was for principle or ideology, De Wever suggested that political power was not his objective and that he would not seek the position of prime minister if it required him to tame his separatist inclinations. He has indicated that he would be willing to enter a coalition with the French-speaking Socialists, allowing their leader, Elio Di Rupo, to become the prime minister, in exchange for a devolution deal. It was also possible that NVA could opt not to form a government at all, leaving other parties to try to form a coalition.

As discussed above, the ongoing dissonance between the majority Flemish and minority Walloons has already led to the collapse of a government. Now, with Flemish separatists and French-speaking Socialists almost on equal footing in parliament, these cleavages would become even more pronounced in the political realm. The future of Belgium was, therefore, at the forefront of the minds of the Belgian people with anxieties being spurred about the possible division of the country in its current incarnation. But even with this existential issue looming, Belgium was still expected to assume the rotating presidency of the EU in just weeks. As well, the country was expected to face a debt crisis with the "debt-to-GDP" ration expected to exceed 100 percent over the course of the next year. Consequently, the country was being faced with a number of challenges at a time when simply forming a government could be tortuous, time-consuming, and possibly dangerous for the health of the economy.


Europe: United Kingdom

British election brings change: Brown out and Cameron in as prime minister; Liberal Democrats play kingmaker

Summary

With the votes counted, it was clear that the anticipated inconclusive election outcome had come to pass with no party winning a clear majority. The last time a British election produced such a result was in 1974. While the Conservatives or Tories were set to become the largest party in parliament, they were yet short of a parliamentary majority. As expected, Labour lost their majority. But with a "hung parliament" looming before the United Kingdom, all eyes were on the Liberal Democrats, whose party was likely to be the most influential player in the election. To that end, the Liberal Democrats entered negotiations with both potential coalition partners, yielding more positive results with the Conservatives rather than Labour. As a result, Prime Minister Gordon Brown resigned as head of government, paving the way for David Cameron to become the new prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Background

On April 6, 2010, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that a general election would be held on May 6, 2010. He said the anticipated elections would allow the British citizenry to decide whether to give his Labour Party a clear mandate for his main policy initiative: job creation. Prime Minister Brown sought consent from the head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, to dissolve parliament at a meeting in Buckingham Palace. He then said, "It will come as no surprise to all of you, and it's probably the least well kept secret of recent years but the queen has kindly agreed to the dissolution of parliament and a general election will take place on May 6."

The actual dissolution of parliament was scheduled for April 12, 2010, offering less than one month for an election campaign. To that end, Prime Minister Brown indicated that his roots derived from an "ordinary middle class family in an ordinary town" had informed his desire to fight on behalf of families of modest means. Prime Minister Brown also emphasized his economic credentials by noting the country was on the road to economic recovery, and that the leader of government should get the "big decisions right."

On the other side of the equation, Conservative Party leader and opposition leader David Cameron expressed delight that he would finally be able to commence campaigning. For his part, Cameron offered up the Conservatives or Tories as the party that would offer the United Kingdom a fresh start. Speaking to this theme, Cameron said, "If we win this election, there will be real change. You don't have to put up with another five years of Gordon Brown."

Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg was quick to offer a far more substantive transformation for British citizens, noting that his party offered something completely new, as compared with the dichotomous old politics of the two main parties.

Ahead of election day, British citizens would for the first time be subject to three televised debates between the three main political leaders. Traditional election themes of economic development, deficits, taxation, and public service were expected to factor highly in those exchanges.

Polling Data and the Debate Effect

At the time the election was called, polling data showed the Conservatives were leading Labor, albeit by varying margins. An ICM survey showed the Conservatives (Tories) with 37 percent, Labour with 33 percent and the Liberal Democrats with 21 percent. A survey by YouGov poll gave the Tories a 10 percent lead over Labour -- a necessary margin if Cameron hoped to secure an outright parliamentary majority (326 seats) in the United Kingdom's "first past the post" system.

By mid-April 2010, following a televised debate among the three main parties' leaders, a shift of fortune had unfolded. A strong performance by Clegg -- hitherto an unknown commodity on the British political landscape -- appeared to have resulted in increased public support. Snap polls conducted after the debate showed that Clegg was the clear winner, according to the newspaper, the Telegraph. Indeed, a survey by YouGov for The Sun gave Clegg the most impressive polling result with 51 percent of respondents favoring him, as compared with Cameron, who had 29 percent, and Brown with 19 percent. Similar results were registered by a ComRes poll for ITV News, showing that 43 percent of respondents thought Clegg was the debate winner, compared to Cameron's 26 percent and Brown's 20 percent. Sky News' text-message poll showed closer results but, again, with Clegg as the winner with 37 percent; Brown was in second place with 32 percent and Cameron was in third place with 31 percent.

While the public's perceptions of which political leader won the debate was not a clear indicator of voting preferences, it certainly opened the possibility that the election contest was wider than originally conceived. To this end, Jeremy John Durham Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrats leader, declared that Clegg's debate performance had "made this a three-way race." He continued, "Nick made it clear that change to the Tories or to Labour is not change." With an eye on electoral strategy, Ashdown said, "If the Liberal Democrats can win 25 percent in the polls and Labour gets 27 percent, then you have changed the dynamic of this election."

Cleggs's success may have rested not only on his strong performance but on another factor. Specifically, the disaffection by the British electorate for the two major parties, partially fueled by the public's disgust regarding a parliamentarians' expense accounts. That scandal, which forced several parliamentarians into early retirement ahead of the polls, appeared to be pushing many voters toward a third viable option in the form of the Liberal Democrats.

Indeed, by the third week of April 2010, it was clear that the public's perception of the debate had actually translated into transformations in voters' preferences. A post-debate ComRes poll for the Independent showed the Conservatives with a receding lead of 31 percent, the Liberal Democrats now surging past Labour into second place with 29 percent, and Labour trailing with 27 percent. A YouGive poll actually showed the Liberal Democrats now carrying a lead with 33 percent, the Tories in second place with 33 percent, and Labour again in third place with 26 percent. The polling variances notwithstanding, it was apparent that in the United Kingdom's first past the post system, these forthcoming elections could well end in a hung parliament. With the rising fortune of the Liberal Democrats, there was now no party likely to have enough seats in parliament to form a majority government.

Attention soon refocused on the second televised debate, which was to concentrate on foreign policy. The two institutionalized parties were banking on Clegg's lack of expertise in this arena to reassert themselves in the electoral race. Indeed, the second debate was marked by fractious exchanges. Brown accused Cameron of being "anti-European" and Clegg of being "anti-American." Burnishing his internationalist credentials, Brown said: "I am afraid David is anti-European, Nick is anti- American. Both of them are out of touch with reality." But Cameron countered with a populist argument, saying that decisions made in Brussels -- the headquarters of the European Union -- should always be questioned in favor of the nationalist interests. Meanwhile, Clegg tried to outline what the Liberal Democrats' foreign policy would look like by saying, "I want us to lead in the world and I want us to lead in Europe, not complain from the sidelines."

Despite greater media scrutiny in the days leading up to the second debate, Clegg appeared to have pulled off another debate victory with post-debate surveys showing him to be the winner again in the eyes of viewers. A poll by ComRes showed that 33 percent of respondents believed Clegg to be the debate winner; both Brown and Cameron garnered 30 percent respectively. While Clegg's held a more modest advantage the second time around, the public's reaction nonetheless demonstrated that he had surpassed the critics' expectations that he would not fare as well, now that the novelty of a viable third choice had worn off. It was yet to be seen how the third debate, which would focus on the economy, would affect the impending elections.

In the backdrop appeared to be a growing sense of anxiety among the Conservatives who, until recently, had expected to defeat the incumbent Labour Party and cruise to victory. Now, their anticipated victory was slipping away. In many senses, the meteoric rise of the Liberal Democrats was translating into a far more complicated voting landscape, which would not benefit the Conservatives' fortune at the polls. Indeed, as noted by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, "There is deep panic in the Tory ranks and in Tory-supporting newspapers." Miliband's reference to Tory-supporting newspapers related to a new trend by conservative journals to pillory Clegg over bank account contributions, which ultimately was resolved when the Liberal Democratic leader disclosed all the banking details showing that there was no impropriety. Ironically, as this dissonance was breaking out, Clegg and the Liberal Democrats had found an unexpected ally in the form of the Labor Party, which had suddenly jumped to the defense of Clegg. It was quite likely that Labour was realistic about its prospects at the polls; Labour likely realized that its only hope of hanging onto power would involve a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

Fortune smiled on the anxiety-stricken Conservatives at the close of April 2010 when the party leaders participated in the third and final debate. Tory leader Cameron was perceived as having won the debate by 36 percent of those surveyed; 30 percent said Clegg won the debate, while 23 percent said Brown was the debate winner.

The Angus Reid poll also showed that Tory leader Cameron enjoyed the best performance in that debate, and was viewed as "a better person to handle most economic policy issues." Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg was viewed as having the best advantage when it came to connecting with undecided voters. Prime Minister Gordon Brown suffered his worst performance, despite his warning that a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would put the economy "at risk." Brown's debate performance aside, his election prospects were not helped by the fact that around the same time, he referred to a voter as a "bigot" spurring controversy, and fueling the flames of suspicion that he had a temperament problem.

Indeed, days ahead of the election, some of the earlier bloom on the Liberal Democrats appeared to have faded with voters returning to their baseline preferences. Polling data by ComRes for ITV News and the Independent newspaper at that time showed that the Conservatives had 37 percent support, Labour had 29 percent, and the Liberal Democrats on 26 percent. This data appeared in line with survey results from YouGov/Sun showing the Conservatives with 35 percent, Labour with 30 percent, and the Liberal Democrats with 24 percent.

Election Results

With the votes counted, it was clear that the anticipated inconclusive election outcome had come to pass with no party winning a clear majority. The last time a British election produced such a result was in 1974. In 2010, there were suggestions that the inconclusive election result was tantamount to a no-confidence vote in government at large. That being said, the Conservatives or Tories were set to become the largest party in parliament, even though they had been denied a parliamentary majority by the British voters. As expected, Labour lost their majority and was relegated to the second largest force in parliament. But with a "hung parliament" looming before the United Kingdom, all eyes were on the third place finisher -- the Liberal Democrats -- who were very likely to become the most influential player in the election.

Quick to take control over the public relations aspect of the election result after winning his own constituency, Conservative leader David Cameron said, "We have to wait for the full results, but it is clear the Labour government has lost its mandate to govern this country." But Foreign Secretary David Miliband of the Labour Party pushed back saying in an interview with British Sky News, "If no party has a majority in the House of Commons, no party has a moral right to a monopoly of power." Prime Minister Brown appeared to acknowledge that the election result delivered a message to the Labour Party, but stopped short of suggesting that the message was one of defeat. He said. "The voters have given us an injunction to talk to each other to see if strong and stable government can be secured." Meanwhile, Liberal Democratic leader, Nick Clegg, admitted his party's disappointment that his strong debate performance had not translated into more parliamentary seats. He called on all the political players to "take a little time" to ensure people got the government they deserved.

The full results ultimately gave the Tories 306 parliamentary seats -- short of the 326 needed to command control of 650-member House of Commons. The Labour Party placed second with 258 seats. The Liberal Democrats secured 57 seats and the right to play kingmaker in the quest for the future government. Also winning seats were the nationalist Welsh and Scottish parties that could also become crucial players in coalition deal-making that was sure to follow. As intimated above, a "hung parliament" would necessitate the formation of a coalition government, with the other parties expected to play crucial roles therein. Absent from that group of likely players was the ultra-right wing British Nationalist Party, often regarded as xenophobic in orientation, which suffered dwindling support at the polls.

Coalition Prospects

In regards to the formation of a coalition government, both Cameron and Brown made it clear they were looking to the Liberal Democrats for partnership in forming a coalition government. In a clear call for cooperation from Liberal Democratic leader, Clegg, Cameron said, "I want to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats." Cameron also urged a quick government formation process, noting the need to calm volatile markets that were in dire need of stabilizing moves. Meanwhile, Brown made a similar overture to the Liberal Democrats. For his part, Clegg made clear that the country and not party politics were at stake. He said, "It is vital that all parties, all political leaders, act in the national interest and not out of narrow party political advantage."

Brown signaled quickly that he would welcome a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and indeed a Labour-Liberal coalition would appear to be the easiest ideological alliance. For example, the Liberal Democrats and Labour have agreed that spending cuts should not be imposed until a time when economic recovery in the United Kingdom has been advanced. In contrast, the Conservatives have backed aggressive deficit reduction. But Liberal Democratic-Labour synergy was especially emphasized by the fact that Labour has backed the Liberal Democrats' biggest demand -- that of electoral reform. Indeed, in a bid to show solidarity with the third place finisher, Brown said: "My view is clear - there needs to be immediate legislation on this to begin to restore the public trust in politics and to improve parliament's standing and reputation, a fairer voting system is central."

Nevertheless, Brown's cause would not be helped by the fact that Clegg made clear that he was not keen on Brown staying on as prime minister, although he did not dismiss the idea of a coalition with Labour under the stewardship of another leader. As well, Clegg said that with the Conservatives winning the most seats, they should have the first chance to try to form a government. But whether or not such a government could include the Liberal Democrats was yet to be seen. Of concern for the Liberal Democrats has been the Tories' opposition to the notion of electoral reform to a proportional system. Such a move would practically foreclose political domination of any one party going forward -- an idea that has left the Tories balking in dismay.

Nonetheless, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats entered talks aimed at forging a possible coalition arrangement. Liberal Democratic leader, Clegg, laid down the proverbial gauntlet as he asserted: "It is now for the Conservative Party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest." His Tory counterpart, Cameron, offered his response saying, "I want us to work together to tackle the debt crisis, social problems and the broken political system." It was yet to be seen whether or not these two statements by Clegg and Cameron were signs of a foundation for a forthcoming coalition.

While both parties characterized their initial talks as "constructive," there remained several unresolved issues. Significantly, Cameron indicated there would be little room for compromise in areas such as defense, relations with the European Union, immigration, and the timing of public spending cuts. On that latter issue, Cameron said, "The biggest threat is the deficit. Starting to deal with the deficit this year is essential." As well, the aforementioned matter of electoral reform continued to be a sticking point. The Conservatives were making clear electoral reform would only be considered in a committee of inquiry, while the Liberal Democrats were affirming its priority status.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Brown appeared to acknowledge the reality of the political landscape with the Liberal Democrats first engaging with the Conservatives. Opening the door for possible talks between the any of the other parties and his Labour Party, Brown said, "I understand and respect the position of Mr. Clegg in saying he first wishes to make contact with the leader of the Conservative Party." He continued, "Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clegg should clearly be entitled to take as much time as they feel necessary. For my part I should make clear I should be pleased to see any of the party leaders."

Political wrangling was expected to dominate the landscape for the immediate future. With no written constitution in the United Kingdom, the job was left to senior civil service to craft rules aimed at the government formation process. At the intra-party level, activists from all three parties were urging the respective leadership branches not to cede excessive accommodation in their discussions with potential coalition partners. Indeed, party loyalists were concerned about that seizing the levers of power would come at too high a price to pay -- specifically, in the way of core party principles.

By May 10, 2010, reports had emerged that a deal was in the works between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Central to that deal was a "final offer" by the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats to hold a referendum on electoral reform. Another possible option would be a "bare minimum" agreement in which the Liberal Democrats would agree not to bring down the Conservative government in a confidence vote. Whether or not that deal would involve the Liberal Democrats as part of a coalition government, or, as the enablers of an effective minority Conservative government was yet to be seen.

With the Conservatives eagerly seeking to seal the deal via such overtures, there were suggestions that a new government might be afoot. Moreover, Clegg , leader of the Liberal Democrats, appeared to place a stamp of approval on the deal-making process. He said that he was "very grateful to David Cameron and his negotiation team" and noted that the negotiations yielded a "great deal of progress." Nevertheless, Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, sought to calm such speculation, asking instead for patience as the negotiations process was exhausted. To that end, he said: "Bear with us a little bit longer and we hope we will be able to provide you with full announcement as soon as possible." At the same time, the Liberal Democrats were indicating that they would not shut the door on negotiations with the Labour Party, however, such a move would be contingent upon Brown stepping down as prime minister.

Perhaps in a bid to advance their prospects with the Liberal Democrats, on that same day -- May 10, 2010 -- Gordon Brown announced he would indeed step down as Labour leader and prime minister by September 2010. This move made it clear that Brown was inclined to put party and progressive principles before personal ambitions. Indeed, Brown noted that the United Kingdom was home to a "parliamentary and not presidential system" and observed that there was a "progressive majority" of voters. In an attempt to show the Liberal Democrats that he would not be a key player for long, Brown also said that he would not participate in a forthcoming leadership race within the Labour Party, saying, "I will play no part in that contest, I will back no individual candidate."

Clegg of the Liberal Democrats indicated tacit approval of the move saying. "Gordon Brown has taken a difficult personal decision in the national interest." This statement came ahead of anticipated negotiations between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, with Clegg noting that such talks would be "sensible and in the national interest."

Political Change: Brown out; Cameron in

On May 11, 2010, it was clear there would be no Labour-Liberal Democratic coalition. Thus, Gordon Brown resigned as prime minister of the United Kingdom, ending 13 years of Labour rule in that country. In his resignation address to the British people, Brown said, "I loved the job not for its prestige, its titles and its ceremony -- which I do not love at all. No, I loved the job for its potential to make this country I love fairer, more tolerant, more green, more democratic, more prosperous and more just - truly a greater Britain." It was clear that the Labour Party would move into the position of being the only progressive option among the major parties on the British political scene.

Brown's resignation paved the way for David Cameron to become prime minister. To that end, Cameron went to Buckingham Palace to officially accept Queen Elizabeth II's request to form the next government of the United Kingdom, and then entered 10 Downing Street at the country's new prime minister. David Cameron had the distinction of being Britain's youngest head of government in about 200 years.

Cameron lauded Gordon Brown for his years of public service and then gave some indication of the type of leadership to come. Cameron said that his government's priorities would concentrate of immediate challenges, such as the debt crisis as well as the loss of public trust in the political system. He warned that "difficult decisions" lay ahead, but struck a positive tone saying he looked toward "better times ahead" for the British people. Indeed, Cameron said: "I think the service our country needs right now is to face up to our big challenges, to confront our problems, take difficult decisions, lead people through those decisions, so that together we can reach better times ahead."

On the matter of the type of government to be formed, it was yet to be determined of Cameron would be at the helm of a minority government, or would hold sway over a majority government with the help of the Liberal Democrats. To that end, Cameron said his objective was to form a "proper and full coalition" with the Liberal Democrats, in the interests of "strong, stable government." Cameron added that he hoped he and Nick Clegg could "put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and the national interest." That being said, Clegg had not yet received majority consent from members of parliament from his party, as well as the federal executive ruling body of the party, to enter a coalition with the Conservatives.

Meanwhile, members of both the Liberal Democrats and Labour began to offer explanations of the failure of their negotiations. From the perspective of the Liberal Democrats, the talks failed because Labour did not seem seriously invested in forging a reformist-minded, progressive government. In fact, according to BBC News, one spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats suggested that core members of the Labour team "gave every impression of wanting the process to fail." The spokesman said that some Labour cabinet ministers "were determined to undermine any agreement by holding out on policy issues and suggesting that Labour would not deliver on proportional representation and might not marshal the votes to secure even the most modest form of electoral reform." But on the other side of the equation, Labour suggested that the negotiations were fatally hindered by impediments erected by the Liberal Democrats. Lord Mandelson of the Labour Party said in an interview with BBC News, that while his party sanctioned the notion of an agreement with the Liberal Democrats, that party "created so many barriers and obstacles that perhaps they thought their interests lay on the Tory side, on the Conservative side, rather than the progressive side."

Note --

At the broader level, the issue of economic and financial stability was at stake. Indeed, the new government would have to deal with formidable challenges as the United Kingdom grapples with recession and budget deficit reduction.

By May 13, 2010, the new coalition government of Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg held an unprecedented news conference aimed at delineating its policies, and demonstrating a sense of coalition unity. At the rhetorical level, Cameron said the coalition government was emblematic of a "historic and seismic shift" in the political landscape of the United Kingdom. He described the alliance as follows: "It will be an administration united behind three key principles: freedom, fairness and responsibility." He continued, "And it will be an administration united behind one key purpose ... the strong and stable and determined leadership that we need for the long term."

At stake would be the practical application of the allied interests of the center-right Conservatives and the center-left Liberal Democrats. Of particular note was the compromise struck on the timetable for a reduction of public spending. To that end, the Liberal Democrats made the concession of signing onto the Conservatives' aggressive agenda to address the United Kingdom's debt woes. Such a move, while necessary in practice, was likely to come with a political cost. Resultantly, some analysts were casting the new government as a kind of sacrificial lamb that would enact difficult but requisite economic policies. Such moves, though, could enrage the public and exact a political price in the longer term.
　
Also at stake was the Conservatives' concession to the Liberal Democrats -- electoral reform. As noted above, agreement was forged on holding a referendum to ratify the proposed alternative voting system to replace the existing "first past the post" system. Should the move be ratified, then voters could specify two candidates in terms of ranking, with the vote for the top choice going to the alternate option if that top choice was ultimately eliminated. If implemented, the change could boost the presence of smaller party candidates in parliament. Still, even agreement on a referendum was not reform-minded enough for the Liberal Democrats, however, that party could take heart in changes to be made in the House of Lords where rolling elections would now be implemented.

One controversial proposal by the new coalition has been the plan for fixed term parliaments. In essence, the plan would commit a government to a five-year term, precluding the prime minister from calling an election at any time within a five year period. While the current threshold for a no-confidence vote to bring down a government has been 50 percent plus one parliamentarian, the new rule would provide for dissolution with the backing of 55 percent or more in parliament.

In the face of criticism, Cameron characterized the change as a good one. However, members of his own party, as well as the opposition Labour Party, have railed against it as potentially damaging for democracy. Indeed, Tory Christopher Chope went further in characterizing the rule change as a "recipe for anarchy." He explained in an interview with the BBC, "It could mean, in practice, that if the present government was to lose its majority in parliament, and wasn't able to operate as a minority government because it didn't enjoy the confidence of a sufficient number of MPs ... it would be able to carry on. But that would be basically a recipe for anarchy, because it would mean that the government wouldn't have a majority." Labour figures David Blunkett characterized the move as "a stitch up" while Jack Straw said it was "completely undemocratic and totally unworkable."
　
In terms of representation, the Liberal Democrats were given several important portfolios in Cameron's cabinet, not the least of which was the position of deputy prime minister going to Clegg himself. Other than Clegg, these included the first secretary to the treasury David Laws, Chris Huhne as energy secretary; and Vincent Cable as business secretary. That being said, the three key ministerial roles -- finance, foreign affairs and the home office -- were to be held by Conservatives George Osborne, William Hague and Theresa May respectively.

The first test of the new Cameron-Clegg coalition government would come within 50 days with a vote on an emergency budget. It would be a sign of whether theoretical concurrence on policy could translate into practical application. It would also be a harbinger of the likely stability and viability of the Conservative-Liberal Democratic alliance.

Queen Elizabeth II presides over opening of parliament

On May 25, 2010, Queen Elizabeth II presided over the opening of a new session of Britain's parliament. Following tradition, the queen delivered the speech detailing the policy agenda of the incoming government, which in this case was that of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. Consistent with the agreement forged between the two allied parties, that policy agenda included tackling the country's problematic deficit, restoring economic growth, and establishing a new Office for Budget Responsibility. There were also plans for certain reforms to the political system, such as a referendum on a new voting system for members of the House of Commons, and, a proposal to make the House of Lords "wholly or mainly elected," according to Queen Elizabeth II. As well, there was the intent to abolish the notion of a national identity card. Encapsulating the thrust of the reformist agenda, the Queen announced: "My government will propose parliamentary and political reform to restore trust in democratic institutions and rebalance the relationship between the citizen and the state."


Middle East: Iraq

Summary --

Iraqi citizens went to the polls on March 7, 2010, to vote in the second parliamentary elections since the 2003 United States-led invasion of that country. The elections occurred at a significant moment in Iraq's political landscape, with United States military forces due to withdraw most of its combat troops by the middle of the year, and a full withdrawal anticipated by 2011. With varied political blocs expected to win representation in parliament, a coalition would likely have to be forged. Whether or not this complicated political terrain would result in more diverse and representative governance was yet to be seen. Without a clear winner, there was speculation that an alternative scenario would involve heightened ethno-sectarian tensions, effectively setting the stage for a resurgence of conflict.

The main coalitions contesting the elections were as follows:

- State of Law Coalition (Shi'ite dominated bloc includes Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa Party, several Sunni tribal leaders, Kurds and several individuals)

- Iraqi National Alliance (major Shiite-dominated bloc including Ammar al-Hakim's Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC), followers of anti-American cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr, former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Ja'fari, leading members of Dawa Party, and former Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress)

- Iraqiya List (multi-sectarian alliance led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite, and including Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi and Salah al-Mutlak's National Dialogue Front, which earlier threatened to withdraw from the election on the basis of discrimination as noted below*)

- Iraq's Unity Coalition (headed by Shi'ite Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani but includes key Sunni figures, such as Ahmad Abu-Risha, the leader of Sunni militia "Awakening Councils" of Anbar province.

- Kurdistan Alliance (composed primarily of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, led by Kurdistan Autonomous Region's President Massud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, led by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani)

- Iraqi Accordance Front (Sunni-dominated bloc that includes Iraqi Islamic Party, parliament speaker Ayad al-Samarrai, along with several other Sunni politicians)

The State of Law Coalition's strongest challenges were expected to come from the Iraqi National Alliance and Iraqiya List. The Unity Coalition was also expected to gain seats in the parliament, while the Kurdistan Alliance was expected to retain control over several parliamentary seats. By contrast, the Iraqi Accordance Front was expected to suffer diminished representation.

Election results --

During the third week of March 2010, election results showed a shift of fortune for those in political power in Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki was running neck and neck with former Prime Minister Allawi. President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri Maliki supported calls for a manual recount of the votes. This call was rejected by election officials.

By late March 2010, with the vote count complete, it was announced that former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's secular bloc had won the most seats in Iraq's parliamentary elections. His coalition garnered a small but significant advantage of•two more seats than the coalition of incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- 91 seats to 89 seats.•With this advantage Allawi was expected to be positioned to form the new government, although it would inevitably be a coalition government because he did not have an outright majority. At stake was control over at least 163 seats in the 325-seat parliament.

But the main focus has been on the Sadrist bloc -- those linked with militant Shi'a Moqtada al-Sadr -- who garnered 40 seats in parliament. Their surprisingly strong performance at the polls positioned them to potentially play kingmaker in the government formation process. To that end, the Sadrists said they would conduct a non-binding referendum to determine their supporters' preference for Iraq's new prime minister. While they were unlikely to support Allawi, whose secular bloc included many Sunnis, they were not keen on Maliki keeping his job. In fact, reports suggested that the Sadrists were offering to give their support to Maliki's State Law Coalition only if the incumbent prime minister promised to step down from office. Ultimately, in the Sadrists' vote, both Allawi and Maliki finished in the bottom rungs of that poll. Instead, the non-binding referendum resulted in a win for former Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who has said that he would ally himself with Maliki. Meanwhile, Iraqiya's small lead was itself compromised by the fact that several of its victorious candidates have been accused of having ties to the banned Ba'ath Party, and were at risk of being disqualified.

By late April 2010, election officials in Iraq ordered a manual recount of the votes cast in Baghdad following claims by Prime Minister Maliki that the electronic vote count system was unreliable. Maliki filed a legal challenge on the basis of this charge and the court ruled in his favor. It was not yet known if the recount in Baghdad would alter the final results of the election. Not surprisingly, pro-Maliki factions were touting the possibility of a shift in fortune, while Allawi warned of ramifications if the election results were overturned. He said, "If this happens, there will be very big problems in the country."

Shi'a dominated coalition formed while recount confirms victory for Sunni-backed bloc

Following Iraq's inconclusive parliamentary elections, attention was on the vote count, recounts and the formation of possible ruling coalitions. To that end, by May 4, 2010, the State of Law alliance, led by Iraq's incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, reportedly formed a coalition with the Iraqi National Alliance (INA). According to initial results, the State of Law won 89 seats and the Iraqi National Alliance garnered 70 seats in the recent parliamentary elections. Together, the two blocs would have control over 159 seats -- effectively bringing them closer to the requisite 163 seats to form a new government. This potential coalition would be a serious threat to the governing aspirations of former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, whose cross-sectarian Iraqiya List bloc won 91 seats in the elections and the largest single bloc in the parliament. In addition to the purely political tensions that were likely to rise from shutting Allawi and his substantial parliamentary members out of office, ethno-sectarian dissonance was likely to be sparked by the notion of a Shi'a dominated coalition taking power and alienating the Sunni minority that cast its lot with the Allawi bloc. In the background of these developments were the ongoing unresolved election disputes, including the disqualifications of some seat-winning candidates and a recount of ballots in Baghdad province.

While the formation of the Shi'a coalition discussed above would position Maliki to retain the reins of power, his case would not be helped by developments in mid-May 2010. Following the completion of a partial recount of the votes cast, Iraq's electoral commission confirmed the close victory of a Sunni-backed secular bloc led by former Prime Minister Allawi -- the Iraqiya List. This official victory served to legitimize Allawi’s competing claim on power. Even if Maliki was able to reach another agreement to secure the handful of seats needed to command a majority in parliament, he would be faced by an infuriated rival bloc that actually won the plurality of seats (not including possible coalition partners). Was Maliki willing to risk possible repercussions? Indeed, the ethno-sectarian dimension of the equation would be of key importance, making the landscape in Iraq fertile ground for a resurgence of conflict.

Note: On June 1, 2010, Iraq's Supreme Court approved the results of landmark elections, effectively clearing the way for the convening of the country's new parliament. While this development reified the slim victory of the secular Iraqiya alliance, headed by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, there was still no end to the coalition-building process with an eye on a future government of Iraq. At issue has been the inconclusive results of the March 2010 parliamentary election, which produced no outright winner, and has failed to facilitate the formation of a coalition government. By mid-June 2010, the 325 members of the Council of Representatives were sworn into office, but the session was immediately suspended pending the election of a new speaker. Deciding who would hold that particular position, along with that of prime minister, would be part of the complex negotiations aimed at producing a power-sharing deal. 

In August 2010, the al-Iraqiya bloc of former Prime Minister Allawi announced that it was suspending talks with the Shi'a-led State of Law alliance of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, which garnered the second most seats following the elections. The reason for the suspension of the negotiations appeared to reside with a television interview in which Maliki characterized al-Iraqiya as being the Sunni party of Iraq. In fact, although Allawi's al-Iraqiya bloc contains some senior Sunni politicians such as Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi, it has always been expressly secular in its orientation. Thus, al-Iraqiya interpreted Maliki's statement as a blatant attempt to heighten ethno-sectarian tensions.  The result has been a political realm fraught with uncertainty about Iraq's future government, within a larger context insecurity, especially manifest in a rise in violent attacks.


Pacific: Solomon Islands

Surprise results in Solomon Islands' election

On Aug. 9, 2010, voters in the Solomon Islands went to the polls to vote in elections. International election observers reported that voting was orderly and peaceful; however, they expressed concerns about the electoral roll, the lack of training of polling station officials, poor flow at polling stations of voters in queues, and recommended improved options for absentee voters.

In terms of the outcome of the elections, there were unexpected results including the ousting of former deputy prime minister Fred Fono and former foreign affairs minister William Haomae, while two former prime ministers -- Allan Kemakeza and Billy Hilly -- failed to hold onto their seats. The fate of Derek Sikua, the country's prime minister since 2007, was not clear at the time of writing.  Meanwhile, two toher former prime ministers -- Manasseh Sogavare and Snyder Rini -- managed to retain their seats, while a former top rebel leader of the Malaita Eagle Force, Jimmy Lusibaea, won with a convincing victory in Malaita. There was no definitive indication of who would become the new prime minister since intense negotiations were still afoot for the formation of a coalition government.

Pacific: Nauru

Second election in months moves Nauru no closer to breaking political deadlock

Voters were set to cast their ballots in snap elections in Nauru on April 24, 2010. The early elections were called in the aftermath of a series of unsuccessful no-confidence motions by the opposition against President Marcus Stephen. For his part, the president dissolved parliament in March 2010 and made clear that he would be seeking a fresh mandate . The conduct of the elections was expected to impact international donors, who would be monitoring the situation. Also monitoring the conduct of the elections would be observers from the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. Turnout was expected to be high.

Preliminary results of Nauru's election showed no change from the previous parliament. The very same 18 individuals who were seated in the previous parliament, including Marcus Stephen, Ludwig Scotty, and David Adeang were among those who won their constituencies under the preferential voting system.

By May 5, 2010, despite the holding of the April elections, Nauru's parliament was not functioning. At issue were three failed attempts to elect a parliamentary speaker, deputy speaker and president. The result was a parliament unable to sit and conduct the people's business. Two days later, President Marcus Stephen -- acting in a caretaker capacity -- said that his administration would continue to govern through the end of June 2010, when a new budget would be passed, if no consensus could be immediately be found. President Marcus Stephen also resisted calls to dissolve parliament and force another election, only weeks after the previous one. He said until June 2010, he would continue to negotiate with opposition parliamentarians for support, with an eye on stable governance.

By May 13, 2010, the political drama continued, even as Godfrey Thoma was elected as Nauru's new speaker of the parliament. At issue was the decision by Speaker Thoma to call on President Marcus Stephen to dissolve the House at the next sitting, effectively setting the stage for another election only a month after the previous one. Speaker Thoma warned that he would not stay on in his current capacity if President Marcus Stephens refused his request. But several politicians, including Finance Minister Kieren Keke, said that an immediate dissolution would be irresponsible, since a fresh election so soon after the previous one would likely result in another stalemate. For his part, the speaker urged that a 19th member of parliament be established to prevent a repeat of the recent political impasse. Only days later on May 19, 2010, Nauru's political turmoil was ongoing with the resignation of Thoma.

With no end in sight to the political stalemate in Nauru, there was increasing likelihood that the citizens of the Pacific nation would have to return to the polls in short order. Negotiations aimed at forging a possible coalition disintegrated on May 20, 2010. At issue was the opposition's call to take on the leadership role, which was rejected by caretaker leader, Marcus Stephen.

In early June 2010, the country finally had a functioning parliament thanks to the decision by two opposition parliamentarians to cross the floor. With the transformed political balance, Dominic Tabuna was elected the new speaker. Nevertheless, even this development did little to resolve the political stalemate facing the country. With his ability to control the budget set to expire in June 2010, President Marcus Stephen declared a state of emergency, dissolved parliament and announced fresh elections for June 19, 2010. Ahead of these polls -- only two months after the previous elections, the president warned the people that electoral reforms had not been implemented to foreclose another deadlocked parliament and so it would be up to the people to deliver a clear victory. He said, "The people are now very much aware of the importance of having a majority in Parliament. So they have to make a decision, so we have put the test to them again, and we hope that with their wisdom they will vote accordingly so there is a majority for whichever government comes in place."

On election day, with preliminary results available at the time of writing, indicated one new member of parliament was elected. Even with this shift of fortune, the "hung parliament" was set to continue, since there was no clear majority for either side.


Oceania: Mauritius

Briefing on elections in Mauritius; Prime Minister Ramgoolam's bloc re-elected to power

On March 31, 2010, Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam of Mauritius dissolved parliament, effectively paving the way for fresh elections. Indeed, he announced that citizens of Mauritius would go to the polls on May 5, 2010, to vote in snap elections. In a national address broadcast on television and radio, he said: "This afternoon, I have informed the President of the Republic that I shall dissolve the National Assembly today. I have decided to call the country for the elections on May 5." In keeping with his promise to concentrate on economic policies in 2009 and elections in 2010, Prime Minister Ramgoolam said: "The hour of the democratic rendezvous has arrived. I have arrived at the end of my mandate." Ramgoolam also touted his record of stability and economic stewardship saying, "My government took courageous measures within the last five years and the country was stable." He noted there had been economic growth "even during the economic crisis."

In addition to Ramgoolam's ruling party, the Mauritius Labor Party, the other parties contesting the election were the Militant Socialist Movement or MSM of Pravind Jugnauth, Mauritian Militant Movement or MMM of Paul Berenger, Mouvement Republicain or MR, Rodrigues Movement or MR, and Rodrigues Peoples Organization or OPR. Ahead of elections, the Mauritius Labor Party said it would join with the Militant Socialist Movement to form an alliance called Alliance de L'avenir.

On election days, the alliance led by Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam won the parliamentary elections. According to the electoral commission of Mauritius, the ruling alliance saw 41 deputies elected to the 60-seat National Assembly. The opposition alliance, led by Paul Berenger, garnered only 18 parliamentary seats. Not only was Prime Minister Ramgoolam's political strength consolidated in parliament, he also gained the distinction of being the first head of government since 1991 to win a second term in office. Ramgoolam campaigned on a platform of ending savings and property taxes, maintaining a free transportation system, and free internet access via laptop computer for all children, with an eye on improved technological prowess among the youth.

On May 11, 2010, Prime Minister Ramgoolam made clear that his election alliance would prevail in the realm of governance. To that end, Pravind Jugnauth, leader of the country's Militant Socialist Movement, was named as the new Vice Prime Minister and Finance Minister.


Asia: Philippines

Aquino proclaimed to be new president of Philippines

On May 10, 2010, parliamentary and presidential elections were held in the Philippines. At the presidential level, incumbent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's term in office was set to expire on June 30, 2010, with all eyes on her possible successor. For her part, Arroyo became president in 2001 following a bribery scandal that forced former President Joseph Estrada to resign from office. Arroyo was re-elected in 2004 but under the Philippine Constitution, she was unable to contest another term in office. Instead, she decided to contest legislative elections with a bid to become a member of the House of Representatives, representing her hometown of Pampanga

There were nine candidates vying to replace Arroyo, with two key candidates among them. Benigno Aquino, the son of the popular former president, Corazon Aquino, as well as former President Joseph Estrada, were both hoping to become president. Another candidate of note was magnate Manny Villar. Pre-election polls gave Aquino the lead. In addition to the presidential contest, elections for the senate and lower house of congress were also at stake. The pre-election landscape has been volatile and marked by bloodshed, forcing a strong security presence on the streets, aimed at preventing further violence. There were also anxieties about the conduct of the polls, as well as the reliability of the country's new automated voting machines.

As voting began in the Philippines, there were several early reports regarding glitches with the electronic voting machines. These problems had the potential to tarnish the overall election results if the vote results were close. As voting day progressed, it was clear that the 2010 election would be fraught by voting problems in the new automated system, along with acts of violence. In an effort to improve the conduct of the elections, voting time has to be extended as a result of long lines and system failures. There were also reports of irregularities. In addition to machines breaking down in about a dozen precincts close to the capital of Manila, there were complaints of missing voter lists and vote-buying.

In the months leading up to the election, a particularly brutal episode of violence ensued in the province of Maguindanao; more than 50 people, most of whom were women, were shot or hacked to death as they walked to register the nomination of one of their clans for the forthcoming 2010 elections. With the elections underway, Amnesty International reported the deaths of at least ten people, however, several others had died on the eve of the election. In the restive southern region of Mindanao, further violence and disorderly conduct was recorded, while the site of the aforementioned massacre in Maguindanao apparently suffered bombings and gun battles.

As the votes were being counted, it was clear that the candidate favored to win the presidency was in the lead, and several rivals were conceding defeat to Benigno Aquino as a result, and calling on the people to support the new leader of the Philippines. Absent from this chorus of concession, however, was Joseph Estrada. For his part, Aquino promised that his priorities as president would include tackling corruption, improving public health, advancing education, and ameliorating the judiciary.

According to the Commission of Elections, with most of the districts accounted for, Aquino had 40 percent of the vote while Estrada, his closest rival, had 25 to 26 percent. The distance between the two top vote getters was so significant that the final outcome appeared all but assured. Outgoing President Gloria Arroyo said she was prepared to step down from power to facilitate an easy transition of presidential authority. She would not depart from the political scene having successfully won her own election into the Congress.

On June 9, 2010, the candidate of Philippines' Liberal Party -- Benigno Aquino III -- was officially proclaimed the country's next president by the Philippine Congress. The proclamation came at the end of a lengthy vote tallying process. Aquino's main rival, Joseph Estrada, conceded defeat and said that he intended to "extend support to Aquino," saying that the president-elect that had the mandate of the Filipino people.

At a news conference, President-elect Aquino answered a range of questions including those about a future cabinet. Aquino also indicated that he did not intend to live at the Malacanang, which has been the official residence of Philippine presidents. Speaking of a future government, Aquino anticipated future political challenges and antagonists saying, "I welcome criticism, especially constructive criticism." He also said that he would "focus on doing the best that we can for the majority of the people."

Editor’s Note:

Benigno Aquino III hails from a political dynasty in the Philippines. Aquino III's political legacy is marked by the fact that he is the only son of late Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. who was shot to death on the tarmac of a Manila airport in Manila in 1983. He had just returned to the Philippines from exile in the United States with the intention of challenging then-President Ferdinand Marcos. The assassination of Aquino Jr. led to mass protests and, ultimately, compelled Marcos to step down from power. Then, the widow of Aquino Jr. and mother of Aquino III -- Corzaon Aquino -- emerged as a political icon in her own right, eventually winning the presidency, and making history as the nation's first female head of state. Now, the son of these two political magnates was about to embark upon his own political course as president. No stranger to politics himself, Aquino III was elected to the House of Representatives in 1998, and was later elected to the Senate in 2007. Since 206, he has been the vice chairman of the Liberal Party. Aquino III was set to be inaugurated into power as the new president of the Philippines on July 1, 2010. Aquino III's policy agenda was to focus on fighting corruption, which he has said is the cause of both continued poverty in his country, as well as the public's lack of trust in government.


Americas: Colombia

Pro-Uribe Santos wins most votes in Colombia's presidential election; run-off election to be held in June

In February 2010, the Colombian constitutional court voted 7-2 against a parliamentary proposal to convene a referendum, which could have potentially changed the constitution to allow President Alvaro Uribe to contest the presidency for a third term. Lead justice Mauricio Gonzalez explained the ruling by observing that the proposed referendum included "substantial violations to the democratic principle." The ruling was not subject to appeal.

For his part, President Uribe said he respected the court's decision. Nevertheless, he made clear that any future successor should continue his security policies against the Marxist rebel group, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), saying, "Those policies have to be re-elected whatever the decision of the court. We cannot change direction, we cannot have a change of guard."

With Uribe now unable to stand for the presidency for a third term, former Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said that he would run for the presidency, in order to ensure that gains made against FARC under Uribe's tenure were not reversed. To this end, Santos said, "What we need to do now is work to ensure his [Uribe's] legacy of security and progress is not lost." Santos appeared to be an early favorite for the presidential election to be held on May 30, 2010. However, independent candidate Sergio Fajardo was gaining strength thanks to his reputation as mayor of Medellin.

It should be noted that despite President Uribe's strong public approval ratings, his tenure has had to deal with criticisms in recent years over human rights abuses by troops, as well as the illegal wiretapping of political opponents by the national intelligence agency. Adding to these criticisms was the arrest of former senator Mario Uribe Escobar -- the cousin and political ally of President Uribe -- in an ongoing investigation into alleged connections between politicians and right-wing paramilitary groups.

Colombia held elections to both houses of the Congress on March 14, 2010. Results showed that the parties aligned with President Alvaro Uribe -- the Colombian Conservative Party and the Colombian Conservative Party or PC and the Social National Unity Party or U Party -- captured the most seats and held on to their dominance in the legislative body. The main opposition party, the Liberal Party, retained its vote share and number of seats. Radical Change, which was once supportive of President Uribe before moving against him, lost seats in the Senate. Likewise, the Alternative Democratic Pole, suffered some loss of seats in the Senate.

As of May 2010, with the presidential election set for the close of the month (May 30, 2010), measures were being taken to ensure the secure conduct of the vote. To that end, 350,000 military and police personnel were deployed across the country. The main presidential candidates were as follows: Former Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos, an Uribist from the outgoing president's party, Germán Vargas Lleras of the Radical Change party, Noemí Sanín of the Conservative Party, Rafael Pardo of Liberal Party, Gustavo Petro of the Alternative Democratic Pole and Antanas Mockus of the newly-formed Green Party. As well, Álvaro Leyva Durán was seeking the presidential nomination by the Conservative Party. Apart from Santos who promised to follow the Uribe mold, Lleras and Sanin have been cast as pro-Uribist in orientation as well. On the other side of the equation, Pardo, Petro, were viewed as alternate options, while Duran and Mockus were viewed as anti-Uribist in orientation.

A month ahead of the election, there appeared to be a clear ideological "right versus left" battle at stake in Colombia with polls showing Santos and Mockus running neck and neck against one another, possibly headed for a run-off election.

On election day, after the votes were counted, Santos had won the first round of Colombia's presidential election with 47 percent of the vote -- just short of an outright majority. His main rival, Mockus, garnered 21 percent. Santos' clear domination at the polls was something of a surprise since polling data indicated a far closer race. That said, both men would contest the run-off election set for June 20, 2010.

Until then, Santos was expected to continue to highlight his national security-dominated campaign platform, and would tout his desire to continue the policies of highly popular outgoing President Uribe. Mockus was expected to draw attention to his campaign agenda issues of anti-corruption and education, as well as his record of improved quality of life and successful public works projects during his time as mayor of Bogota. That said, with third place candidate Lleras saying that he would back Santos in the second round, the advantage would certainly reside with the pro-Uribe former defense minister on June 20, 2010.

On the day of the second round -- June 20, 2010, as expected, Santos won an overwhelming 69 percent of the vote, propelling him into position of President-elect of Colombia. With a clear sign that he would continue outgoing President Uribe's hardline security policies, President-Elect Santos said during his victory speech that Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia's (FARC's) "time had run out" and foreclosed the possibility of negotiations. He also declared that he would not rest until they had secured every inch of the country.

Ironically, the election was itself marked by violence between government forces and FARC; clashes led to the deaths of at least 10 policemen and soldiers from the Army of Colombia, and six FARC guerrillas. Still Colombian authorities hailed a more positive development in the days ahead of the election when three police officers and a soldier who had been held captive by FARC for 12 years were rescued. On the other end of the equation, however, two soldiers were sentenced to 28 years in jail for extrajudicial killings. Those two cases were examples of the security challenge posed by right-wing militants in Colombia.

In the first week of August 2010, Juan Manuel Santos was sworn into office as Colombia's new president. During his inaugural speech, President Santos noted that among his priorities would be improved relations with neighboring countries of Ecuador and Venezuela. As well, he aimed to decrease the unemployment rate, reduce poverty, and deal with corruption. President Santos also said he would continue the efforts against militant rebel and terror groups, including the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC); however, he also said that he would not foreclose the possibility of dialogue with FARC if they renounced their campaign of violence.


Americas: Suriname

Former military dictator and convicted drug trafficker becomes new Surinamese president

Parliamentary elections were set to take place in Suriname on May 25, 2010. These would be the fifth elections in Suriname in the aftermath of the overthrow of the military regime that once ruled the South American country.

Parties and blocs contesting the election included the New Front (NF) coalition of incumbent President Ronald Venetiaan, A Combination party, led by former rebel leader, Ronnie Brunswijk, the People's Alliance, the Democracy and Development in Unity (DOE), and the Mega Combination coalition of led by former military strongman, Desi Bouterse's National Democratic Party (NDP), the left-wing Palu party, and the traditional Suri-Indo party (KTPI). That being said, the main contest for the unicameral 51-seat National Assembly could be lumped into two blocs -- the ruling New Front (NF) and the Mega Combinations (MC).

Days ahead of the elections, polls favored Bouterse's bloc. Indeed survey data indicated that MC would carry as much as 50 percent of the youth vote, with only about 18 percent of young voters favoring NF. Winston Jessurun of NF dismissed the youth trend, and said that he was confident that all voters would return the ruling coalition to power. He recalled the military regime of Bouterse that ruled Suriname in the 1980s saying, "These are the same people who had a reign of terror in the eighties. The people of the past want to become part of the future. It is quite legitimate to look back, because the players are the same during the period of repression and disastrous policies." Meanwhile, Vice President Ram Sardjoe -- the leader of the Progressive Reform Party (VHP), which is part of the NF, touted the coalition's record and promised a positive future saying, "The New Front has a foundation to build a house of macro-economic development and where people can relax and elevate."

On election day, with the votes counted, it was apparent that former military dictator and convicted drug trafficker, Desi Bouterse, would be returning to power as the elected president of Suriname. While his opposition Mega Combination failed to garner an outright majority in the 51-seat parliament, it nonetheless acquired the plurality of the votes with 23 seats. Clearly, his political comeback was a successful one, despite his dubious record, which also included standing trial for the assassination of 15 political rivals in 1982.

Meanwhile, the incumbent New Front (NF) coalition of President Ronald Venetiaan won 14 seats and would be operating in opposition. The A Combination party, led by former rebel leader, Ronnie Brunswijk, secured seven seats. Also securing seven seats was the People's Alliance. The Democracy and Development in Unity (DOE) party won one seat.

Presidents are elected in the United People's Assembly (VVV), which contains both parliament and regional councils. In that body, Bouterse's MC had control over 567 of the 919 seats and was, therefore, positioned to ensure that he would be selected as president. Indeed, by July 19, 2010, Bouterse was elected President of Suriname, defeating  Chandrikapersad Santokhi, the outgoing Justice and Police Minister, in an internal vote.

Bouterse was  not be warmly welcomed to the fold of former colonial master, the Netherlands. The government of that country has said at the time of the general elections  that while it respected Suriname's sovereignty, it would nonetheless not accept a President Bouterse within its own borders. Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Verhage said that Bouterse remained a fugitive from justice in the Netherlands since he was sentenced in absentia to 11 years in prison for cocaine trafficking. As well, Verhange pointed out that Bouterse was additionally accused of the 1982 murder of 15 persons, including journalists, lawyers, trade unionists, business people, and military.

At home in Suriname, the new President Bouterse seemed eager to gain the support of local but extending a message of national unity.  After securing the necessary parliamentary votes to secure the presidency, he said: “I reach out my hand to all other parties, all Surinamers. Let’s build up our country together." He continued, “This is a historical moment, because it’s been a long time since a president was chosen by a qualified majority in parliament. A president who comes from a modest Amerindian background."

This speech garnered no positive resonance from the family of people killed in 1982 when Bouterse ruled the country.  The family issued an open letter that read as follows: “Article 92 of the constitution says that a presidential candidate shall not have conducted any actions which are in violation of the constitution. Mr. Bouterse has at least three violations in his name: the 1980 coup d’état, the December murders and the slaughter of innocent people in the Maroon village Moiwana in 1986.”  Indeed, Bouterse was yet to face court to respond to  charges that he was responsible for the 1982 deaths.

Americas: Dominica

Opposition party wins by-elections in Dominica

On July 9, 2010, voters in Dominica cast ballots  to fill two vacant seats in parliament less than seven months after Dominicans elected a new government.

At issue was the decision by Speaker of the Dominica parliament, Alix Boyd Knights, to declare the seats vacant after two members of the opposition United Workers Party (UWP) boycotted the parliament to register discontent over perceived irregularities in the December 2009 general elections, which were decisively won by the ruling Dominica Labour Party (DLP).  The issue evoked a political uproar with one of the two contested seat holders,  former  Prime Minister Edison James, condemning Speaker Boyd for overstepping her authority in declaring the seats at stake vacant.  He argued  that the High Court and not the Speaker had the capacity to make such a determinations.  But Attorney General Francine Baron-Royer  appeared to side with Speaker Boyd, and in so doing, paved the way for possible by-elections to ensue.

To that end, voters were now being charged with the task of again casting ballots in the two key constituencies with vacant seats.  Former Prime Minister James was again on the ballot along with fellow UWP candidate, Hector, despite characterizing the by-elections as an “unconstitutional process.”  With the votes counted, it was clear that both James and John were ratified by the voters, despite being forced to seek re-election.  Indeed , James won by an even greater margin than he had months earlier, as was the case for John.

Americas: Dominican Republic

Victory for ruling party in parliamentary elections in Dominican Republic

A parliamentary election was scheduled to be held in the Dominican Republic on May 16, 2010. At stake were seats in the Dominican Republic's bicameral National Congress (Congreso Nacional), consisting of the Senate (Senado) with 32 seats and the Chamber of Deputies (Camara de Diputados) with 178 seats.

In the Senate, polling data by the firm, Asisa Research, showed that the Dominican Liberation Party (PLD) could win as many as 30 seats in that chamber. Since the Senate is composed of 32 seats, such an outcome would translate into overwhelming control. The main challenge for control of the Senate was expected to come from the Dominican Revolutionary Party (PRD) that could win as many as 15 seats, In the National Congress, the PLD was poised to win approximately 97 seats in the 178-seat body. Again, the main challenge there was expected to come from the PRD.

The elections did not constitute a peaceful proposition in the Dominican Republic in 2010. One opposition PRD supporter was killed and three others were wounded in a clash between government forces and opposition supporters in San Cristobal. As well, a leader within the PLD died while procuring identity documents. A third person died during clashes between PRD and PLD supporters.

　Available election results gave the PLD 30 seats in the 32-seat Senate, consistent with pre-election polling data. One Senate seat went to the PRD and another to the Social Christian Reformist Party (PRSC). In the lower house, made up of 178 seats, the PLD won 102 deputies, the garnered 73 seats, and the PRSC had three seats.


Americas: Trinidad and Tobago

Election 2010:

Prime Minister Patrick Manning soundly defeated; Kamla Persad Bissessar leads coalition to landslide victory and becomes first female prime minister and head of government of Trinidad and Tobago

***

Summary:

The citizens of the oil-rich twin island Republic of Trinidad and Tobago went to the polls to vote in a general election on May 24, 2010. The election positioned the People's National Movement of incumbent Prime Minister Patrick Manning against the diverse but united coalition bloc, known as the People's Partnership, headed by opposition leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar. It was a clear choice between retaining the status quo and opting for change. The election results delivered a decisive defeat to Patrick Manning and gave a landslide victory to Kamla Persad Bissessar., setting her on the path of history to become the Caribbean nation's first female prime minister and head of government.

***

In detail:

On April 8, 2010, it was announced that the parliament of Trinidad and Tobago was to be dissolved, setting the stage for early elections in a country that was not yet scheduled to hold a new vote until 2012. As stated by the office of the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago: "In accordance with Section 68 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Patrick Manning, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago today advised President George Maxwell Richards to dissolve the Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago with effect from midnight, tonight (Thursday April 8 2010)." According to reports from the ground in the capital city of Port of Spain President George Maxwell Richards responded by issuing the relevant proclamation. No actual date was offered by Prime Minister Manning for snap elections; however, legally, a general election could be held within a minimum of 35 days and a maximum of 90 days of the dissolution of parliament. A May 2010 date was therefore highly likely. Indeed, May 24, 2010, was subsequently announced as the day Trinidadians and Tobagonians would go to the polls.

Meanwhile, attention was focused on why Prime Minister Manning, who was under fire for rising crime and corruption, as well as erratic behavior, would take this action to return the electorate to the polls on a premature schedule. Sources in Trinidad and Tobago suggested that Prime Minister Manning may have wanted to prevent Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar from being able to advance the no-confidence motion she had filed against him. Indeed, reports from the Trinidad Express indicated that Prime Minister Manning may have been wary of possible revelations that might emerge under the protection of parliamentary privilege in the debate. One could, however, argue that a general election campaign would serve only to draw increased scrutiny and attention to outstanding matters of concern. Still others in Trinidad and Tobago have drawn attention to the fact that Manning's government failed to pass key legislation in the form of the Trinidad and Tobago Revenue Authority Bill only the day before the dissolution announcement. In that vote, which required a special majority to pass, the government was unable to gain the support of several Independent Senators. Perhaps that legislative defeat had motivated Manning to seek a fresh mandate.

With the election date set, the attention now moved toward election strategy. The opposition parties reportedly held talks aimed at consolidating their efforts, with an eye on avoiding the kind of split vote effect that propelled Prime Minister Manning's People's National Movement (PNM) to victory in the 2007 election. Indeed, Persad-Bissesar's main opposition United National Congress (UNC) held talks with Winston Dookeran's Congress of the People (COP) party, with the objective of forming some sort of election deal.

To that end, the two opposition leaders soon announced they had successfully brokered an agreement. In an interview with the media, Persad-Bissessar said: "We have reached agreement on the way forward for both of our parties. The United National Congress has reached agreement, the details of which will be shared with you during the course of the campaign." She continued, "We have both agreed that we will be talking with the other opposition groups to chart a way forward with them as well. Our intention is to unite all the opposition forces to ensure that May 24 is indeed liberation day in this land." Striking a note of unity in the national interest, former Central Bank Governor Dookeran said: "We are doing this with the full knowledge of the burden of history upon us and whatever individual sacrifices we may wish to make will be made in the interest of the future of Trinidad and Tobago." Ultimately, it was revealed that the two parties, along with a number of other smaller opposition parties, agreed not to compete against each other in all constituencies, effectively ensuring that voters would have a choice between the PNM and the non-PNM option. The united opposition bloc was titled "People's Partnership" (PP).

Meanwhile, Information Minister Neil Parsanlal defended the government's decision to call elections so far ahead of schedule. He dismissed suggestions that the early election was an acknowledgment by the Manning administration of failure. He said, "What we are doing here by calling the election is simply exercising good governance." He continued, " There have been criticisms of the government in a number of areas, and the government is going back out to people and saying this is what we have done." Prime Minister Manning began the campaign by mocking the slate of candidates contesting the elections on behalf of the opposition bloc. He also suggested that a previous coalition government in Trinidad and Tobago had crumbled, saying that coalitions in Trinidad and Tobago were "inherently unstable and lead to weak governments." Manning thusly urged the people to give him a decisive victory and a renewed mandate for government.

The reputation of the Manning government, however, was not likely to be helped by some negative public relations exposure involving an American consultant assisting the PP's campaign. Political strategist Bernie Campbell, who worked on United States President Barack Obama's campaign, was refused entry into Trinidad and Tobago by the Immigration Department. PP leader Persad-Bissessar characterized the decision as "an international disgrace," and warned of possible repercussions to diplomatic relations between Trinidad and Tobago and the United States. Persad-Bissessar said, "He (Campbell) has been here before. He has come in to hold discussions for consultancy with us to strengthen the election campaign. When he returned they took away his passport and detained him all night." She continued, "The law is clear, and any person can come here and work for 30 days without a work permit." The American Embassy appeared to concur with spokesperson Matthew Cassetta saying, "we are concerned about the grounds on which he was detained and turned around." Cassetta also said the United States had demanded an explanation from the Manning government. Subsequently, the Manning government reversed its position banning Campbell to the country; however, the political damage had already been done.

In early May 2010, politics in Trinidad and Tobago took an ugly turn with newspapers reporting there was an apparent threat to kill opposition leader, Persad-Bissesar. The Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS) said it was treating the alleged assassination plot seriously and that it would increase security for the politician. The TTPS also said it was adopting a "zero tolerance approach to any anti-social behavior or attempts to breach the peace by the public," warning "persons found doing so will be met with the full extent of the law." For her part, the opposition leader said she did not know if the threat was real. Prime Minister Manning intimated that the whole scenario was "a hoax" -- a claim that was quickly disputed by other authorities who said that the investigation was still ongoing.

In other pre-election developments, the 15-nation Caribbean Community (CARICOM) announced it was deploying monitors to observe the May 24, 2010, general election in Trinidad and Tobago. The conduct of the elections in this typically calm Caribbean country could be of significance given the unusual level of election tension and dissonance. Apart from the possible threat on the opposition leader noted above, the TTPS said that five individuals had been arrested during a raid on a house in Carenage in connection with a plot to disrupt the impending elections. Among those detained was Fuad Abu Bakr, the son of Yasin Abu Bakr, who in 1990 staged an unsuccessful coup against the Robinson administration of that time.

In terms of a campaign agenda, the PNM has focused on its record of stewardship in the last several years. It has highlighted its use of energy revenue to improve infrastructure and service in Trinidad and Tobago. To this end, Prime Minister Patrick Manning said, "Our record speaks for itself and we are of the view that no other government except a PNM government in the history of Trinidad and Tobago has been able to achieve so much in such a relatively short space of time." But Persad-Bissessar, at the helm of the PP, has been regarded as a formidable opponent who has effectively deconstructed the PNM manifesto and excoriated the incumbent ruling party for manifold corruption. Explaining her bloc's policy agenda titled "We will Rise," Persad-Bissessar said: "My immediate goal will be to introduce greater transparency and accountability in government and to ensure that our oil and gas wealth is truly used for the development of our nation and our people."

Days ahead of election day, polling data from NACTA by Vishnu Bishram, as well as the ANSA MCAL Psychological Research Center at the University of the West Indies, forecast a close election. Although the PP coalition was the more popular choice in terms of raw percentages, and Kamla Persad-Bissessar was definitely the preferred choice of prime minister, in Trinidad and Tobago's "first past the post" system, the PNM still had a good chance of holding onto power. Indeed, the PNM was likely to carry at least 19 seats, which meant that it was not a difficult proposition for them to get the next two requisite seats to form a government. On the other hand, high voter turnout and a citizenry outraged with the Manning administration's complicity in corruption could translate into a "change wave" election in which the PP coalition could run the proverbial table to victory.

On May 24, 2010, the citizens of the oil-rich twin island republic of Trinidad and Tobago went to the polls to vote in the heated general election with voter turnout said to be in excess of 60 percent. Preliminary results on election night showed that the PP coalition garnered between 27 and 30 out of the 41 seats at stake -- enough to give them a likely constitutional majority. The PNM was expected to carry between 11 and 14 seats and, in so doing, suffer a significant negative shift of fortune. Indeed, the result signified a preference for the PNM alternative at the party level, and a clear repudiation of the leadership of Patrick Manning. On the other side of the equation, the election results constituted a landslide victory for Kamla Persad-Bissessar, giving her a clear mandate and setting her on the path of history. The former attorney general already held the distinction of being the first female to lead any major party in Trinidad and Tobago, and now she was positioned to become the country's first female prime minister and head of government.

Expressing her emotions on the night of her coalition bloc's landmark victory, Persad Bissessar said, "My cup is full and runneth over." Speaking to a crowd of jubilant supporters at the Reinzi Complex in Central Trinidad, she declared: As prime minister-elect of our great republic of Trinidad and Tobago, let me say how overwhelmed I am, humbled to deliver the government of Trinidad and Tobago to you." She continued, "Today you have given me your hand in trust and today I am deeply humbled by the trust you have placed in me. I accept it with deep gratitude."

On May 26, 2010 -- two days after her coalition bloc secured election victory, Kamla Persad Bissessar, was sworn into office as the first ever female prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago. In her inauguration speech, Prime Minister Persad Bissessar said, "We have to move forward as one nation." She also asserted, "The task ahead of us is challenging; we have been given an immense opportunity to develop Trinidad and Tobago." The new prime minister said that she would soon announce her cabinet, noting that it would include a Ministry of Tobago Development to foreground the priority of the sister isle, which played such a crucial role in the election with both Tobago seats voting for the coalition.

In other developments at the close of May 2010, Patrick Manning resigned as the leader of the PNM, which was now in opposition. Keith Rowley was said to be the likely candidate set to replace Manning at the helm of the PNM. It would rest upon the new PNM leader to take stock of the party's election failure and to rebuild the party with an eye on future success.


Africa: Rwanda

Violence marks pre-election period in Rwanda; Kagame re-elected

A presidential election was scheduled to take place on August 9, 2010 in Rwanda. It would be the second presidential poll in Rwanda since the 1994 genocide that left close to one million Batutsis and moderate Bahutus dead. In recent times, President Kagame has been criticized for a slide into autocracy, marked by intimidation of the opposition ahead of the 2010 election.

At issue, according to Human Rights Watch, have been allegations of threats and intimidation against members of new opposition parties including the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda. Human Rights Watch accused "individuals and institutions close to the government and the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front" of being behind the threats and intimidation. Georgette Gagnon, the Africa director of Human Rights Watch, issued the following warning: "The Rwandan government already tightly controls political space. These incidents will further undermine democracy by discouraging any meaningful opposition in the elections."

Ahead of the election, the political landscape in Rwanda was also characterized by violence. On June 19, 2010, Lieutenant General Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa -- the ex-army chief of Rwanda -- was shot while living in exile in South Africa. His wife, Rosette Nyamwasa, accused President Kagame of orchestrating the attempted assassination of her husband. For its part, the government of Rwanda denied being behind the shooting, saying instead that it would never countenance acts of violence.

Days later, Jean Leonard Rugambage, the acting editor of the Umuvugizi newspaper, was shot to death outside his house in the Rwandan capital city of Kigali. While authorities said that they did not know who was responsible for the fatal attack, media reports indicated that two men shot at the journalist and then escaped in a car. The government had suspended the publication of the newspaper for six months, forcing it online dissemination via the Internet instead. The government defended the move saying that the newspaper was inciting opposition to the government. Perhaps not surprisingly, the chief editor of Umuvugizi, Jean Bosco Gasasira, who was living in exile in Uganda, blamed Rugambage's murder on the government.

Coming so soon after the attack on Nyamwasa (discussed above), the death of Rugambage was illustrative of the growing chorus of criticism from opponents of the government, who have accused President Kagame of increasingly autocratic rule. They have also accused him of limiting the expression of independent media in Rwanda ahead of the presidential election scheduled to take place in August 2010. But President Kagame argued that a stronger hand by the government was needed to prevent another genocide in the country.

The situation took a dire turn a month later on July 14, 2010, when Andre Kagwa Rwisereka, the vice president of the opposition Democratic Green Party, was found dead in Butare, southern Rwanda. A machete was found close to his partially-decapitated body. Rwisereka had been unable to register for the presidential election.

The spate of violence led to a media watchdog group, Reporters Without Borders, calling on the European Union and other donors to suspend financial support for the election posing the question, "How much longer will the international community continue to endorse this repressive regime?"

Meanwhile,  polling results showed that President Paul Kagame was re-elected by a wide margin.  Via his website, Kagame issued a statement saying that the election result was an "indication that Rwanda has respectable citizens."  However, not all Rwandans were as sanguine as the president; instead, they complained that they had been forced to vote for Kagame since the leading opposition politicians were prevented from contesting the election.


Africa: Burundi

Tensions ahead of election in Burundi; President Pierre Nkurunziza  re-elected in uncontested vote

In April 2010, Burundi President Pierre Nkurunziza affirmed he would seek re-election by contesting the presidential election in that country, scheduled for June 28, 2010. He was to be designated as the candidate of the ruling National Council for the Defense of Democracy/Defense Democratic Forces. Several other candidates were also slated to contest the country's first elections by universal direct suffrage. The 2005 election that brought Nkurunziza to power was an indirect poll taken within both parliamentary chambers, however, since that time, changes were made to the constitution.

The distinctive nature of the election was compromised when Burundi’s opposition parties decided to withdraw from the poll. They were protesting district-level elections that yielded victory for the ruling party in May 2010. The charged the country's electoral body with failing to prevent irregularities, arguing that it was unlikely to prevent further fraud at the presidential election level.

With political tensions on the rise, Africa Union Commission President Jean Ping called for a peaceful election, warning that political tensions and dissonance could return the country to a state of crisis. He also called on opposition parties to use peaceful means to register their grievances over the district level elections. To that end, he urged the opposition the Alliance of Democrats for Change "to focus exclusively on legal remedies" to resolve the disputes related to elections. Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon urged opposition parties to reconsider their decision to boycott the impending presidential election.

There were reports of arrests of opposition militants in the days leading up to the election. Then, election day itself -- June 28, 2010 -- was marked by violence in Burundi with gunmen opening fire at a polling station in the country' s western province of Bubanza, presumably in an attempt to disrupt the vote. There were no casualties reported as a result. Burundi's National Electoral Commission said that turnout was very low and that provisional results would not be available for at least two days. With opposition candidates withdrawing from the presidential contest, leaving ruling party candidate Pierre Nkurunziza as the only choice, it was not surprising that turnout was low; clearly, the outcome of the election was also not expected to be a surprise.  Indeed, two days after the election took place, the country's electoral commission  said that President Pierre Nkurunziza has won re-election victory. The electoral commission said that Nkurunziza was elected by 91.62 percent.

Parliamentary Elections despite opposition boycott

In the aftermath of the presidential election, the citizens of Burundi went to the polls to vote in parliamentary elections, despite the opposition boycott, on July 23, 2010.  Due to the limited competition ensconced in these elections, perhaps not surprisingly, voter turnout was low.  As with the presidential race, victory was regarded as a foregone conclusion for President Pierre Nkurunziza's ruling party.

Editor's Note:

From the time of independence, the political control of the country has been held by the minority Tutsi elite. In 1993, conflict erupted between the Tutsi-led army and rebel groups from the majority Hutu population. That war was sparked in 1993 when Burundi's first Hutu president and democratically-elected leader, Melchior Ndadaye, was assassinated. The bloody war left around 300,000 people dead and hundreds of thousands more displaced. A peace process has been underway for several years, culminating in elections intended to usher in a power-sharing government. In 2000, a peace agreement brought an interim government to power. A ceasefire agreement, ratification of a constitution, and elections followed in 2005. Continuing peace talks have led to some positive developments in the process of national reconciliation, however, instability and violence have prevailed to date, making clear the precarious position of the recently-elected government.


Africa: Ethiopia

Ruling party wins parliamentary elections in Ethiopia

Parliamentary election were scheduled to take place in Ethiopia on May 23, 2010. At stake were the 547 seats in the Yehizbtewekayoch Mekir Bet (Council of People's Representatives), to be directly elected by popular vote from single-member districts to serve five-year terms. The ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) has strong control over that lower body in parliament.

The opposition has argued that the election could well become a struggle to prevent one-party rule in Ethiopia, and as such, it has warned of potential violence. Its warning was not so much a threat from its ranks but an utterance of fear that its supporters could be arrested and imprisoned if they took to the streets to demonstrate their frustration with the political system. Such fears held validity since the previous general election of April 2005 was marred by violence. In order to preclude such an unfortunate development, the incumbent EPRDF has signed an Election Code of Conduct along with the opposition parties. In the agreement, there have been provisions for specified media time, although the opposition has complained that excessive time was allocated to the ruling party.

Provisional results gave the ruling EPRDF an overwhelming 499 of the 536 declared seats, and left 11 seats undeclared. This result marked a significant increase in parliament for a party that was already the dominant political force there. The eight-party Medrek bloc, which presented the primary challenge to the EPRDF, won only one seat in the capital of Addis Ababa.

While the election in Ethiopia went off peacefully, it was certainly not free of irregularities and voter intimidation, according to international election observers. Election monitors from the European Union criticized Ethiopia's election, with chief observer Thijs Berman describing it as "an uneven playing field." Berman continued, "This electoral process falls short of certain international commitments." Berman also drew attention to the improper and undemocratic use of national resources to fund the ruling party's election campaign. Still, Berman acknowledged that these concerns might not have materially affected the election's actual outcome.

Note that final results were not available at the times of writing and likely would not become available until late June 2010.


Middle East: Egypt

Ruling NDP claims victory; supporters of Muslim Brotherhood say they were blocked from Egypt polls

Elections were held on June 1, 2010, in Egypt for a third of the seats in the legislative Shura council -- the upper house of the Egyptian parliament.  The ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) was hoping to secure its majority, while the country's biggest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, was hoping to gain a footing in the Shura Council upper house.  Technically, the extremist militant Muslim Brotherhood has been barred from contesting elections and participating in Egypt's political scene; accordingly, candidates affiliated with it have had to run in elections as independents. Ahead of these elections, independents affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood held control over  a fifth of the lower house seats, but none in the upper house.  Thus, there was an impetus for a good performance at the polls  in these elections.

Early indications were that the ruling party would have the advantage, largely due to the fact that the  Muslim Brotherhood intended to field only 12 candidates, in an election with only a limited number of seats at stake, and which has been notorious for low voter turnout. Ultimately, the election results showed that none of the independent candidates affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood won seats.  For its part, leaders from within the Muslim Brotherhood claimed that the election result had been rigged, while its supporters launched charges of irregularities, and complained that they had been blocked from the polls by backers of the NDP. Independent election monitors concurred that the vote went off in a flawed manner, with reports emerging about fraud,  pre-filled ballots, invalid voting cards and vote-buying. There were also reports that the police prevented people from voting in certain areas.  That being said, even with these allegations to consider, election officials said that the outcome was not impacted since there were so few independent candidates on the ballot in the first place in comparison to NDP candidates.

Ultimately, the Higher Election Commission of Egypt confirmed that the ruling NDP won 80 out of 88 seats contested in the Shura Council mid-term elections.  Four seats were won by four opposition parties respectively -- al-Ghad, al-Geel, al-Tagammu and the Nasserist.  Another four seats were won by independent candidates.


 

*************

COUNTRYWATCH SPECIAL REPORT: USA ELECTION 2008

by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor-in-Chief

The year 2008 promised to be a pivotal one in terms of the political landscape of the United States.  With Republican President George W. Bush completing his second and last term in office, and with no incumbent running for the presidency, new and old faces came to the fore in pursuit of the highest office in the United States. While Republicans were hoping to hold the White House despite the fact that Bush was exiting the role as one of the least popular presidents in United States history, Democrats were hoping to recapture the executive branch of government after two successive failures in the 2000 and 2004 elections.  Meanwhile, Democrats in the Congress were hoping to hold  on their razor-thin majority position  in Senate  and build on their advantage in  House of Representatives.  As well, a number of  gubernatorial races were scheduled to take place. 

Following is an exposition of these forthcoming elections, which will be regularly updated in the weeks and days leading up to election day on November 4, 2008. Section 1 is a lengthy exploration of the issues, election climate and landscape, party favorability and other factors that  frame and texture the 2008 election season.  Included in sections 2-6 are CountryWatch's projections for the outcome of the presidential, congressional and gubernatorial races.  

Click on the following links --  

1. The Road to the White House: Landscape and Issues

2.  Presidential Race: Presidential Primaries

3. Presidential Race: General Election

4. Congressional Elections: The Senate

5. Congressional Elections: The House of Representatives

6.  Governors Races


-- Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman
    Editor in Chief and Executive Vice President
    CountryWatch Inc.