NSW Labor finally deliver something on schedule: its own execution

As expected for almost four years, the Liberals have regained power in NSW for the first time since 1995. It was a victory made almost a day after the last election four years ago when it was clear the state had enough of Labor but weren’t quite ready to trust the other lot.

Labor were always going to lose today, as long as the opposition leader didn’t have any sexual peccadilloes to be exposed. NSW’s incoming premier Barry O’Farrell has no such skeletons in his closet, and was quite content to stay in that closet while Labor quietly and quickly destroyed itself. Premier Maurice Iemma survived the 2007 election not because he was any good – he was useless – but because the well-liked John Brogden couldn’t control his tongue. His successor Peter Debnam was inept in the election campaign.

Barry O’Farrell was deputy leader under Brogden and favourite to replace him. Debnam outmanoeuvred him in 2005 but fell on his own sword after the 2007 election. O’Farrell is typical Irish stock, conservative, canny and pragmatic to a fault. He knew that to win the 2011 election he simply had to not put a foot wrong. This meant keeping dancing engagements to a minimum and letting Labor hang itself with the help of a favourable media.

Under O’Farrell the Liberals quickly established a lead in the polls. Iemma quit barely a year after winning and his replacement Nathan Rees was quickly seen as a dead man walking. Leading the state during the GFC didn’t help as revenues shrunk and three by-elections resulted in massive defeat for the party. But Rees had even less gravitas than Iemma and both were compared unfavourably to party hero Bob Carr. Some critics wanted to fast-forward to the next election and criticised the state’s mandatory four year terms. As Antony Green pointed out, this was nonsense. The Rees government would have been highly unlikely to call an election until the last possible date because opinion polls indicate it couldn't win.

But what the fixed term did do was to mark 26 March 2011 on the long term calendar as a day of retribution. Whoever was Labor leader on that day would pay for 16 years of apparent ineptitude. NSW ranks last in state economies. Given that it remains the state with the biggest population and Australia’s biggest and only international city, it rankled with status-conscious locals.

Despite the fact NSW unemployment is now falling the damage was done. Kristina Kenealy was drafted in to replace the increasingly exposed Rees. Her enthusiasm and American glamour made her personally popular but she was unable to stop the inevitable blood bath today. The result was as expected with O’Farrell’s coalition expected to win 68 seats to Labor’s 22. It is a defeat the scale of which is likely to keep it out of power for 12 to 16 years.

While Labor retreats to nurse its wounds, O’Farrell will now have to step out of the shadows. As David Marr said in 2009 O'Farrell was determined but cautious. "He commits no blunders." Marr also called him one of the most capable apparatchiks the party has produced in a generation. In 1992 he defeated Tony Abbott to become State Director of NSW Liberals. Long content to be a backroom boy he told people “when I lose weight and the beard, then you'll know I'm after the Liberal leadership.” In 2001 the beard went and he started weight loss programs two years later as Brogden’s deputy.

Marr notes how O’Farrell’s failure to step up to replace Brogden in 2005 “haunts his career”. As he celebrates being the first Liberal leader of NSW in over 17 years, perhaps now he can forget his old nightmares. The serious question remains however, can he help NSW forget its?

Ireland's difficulty is Enda's opportunity

Incoming Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny might be forgiven a bit of hyperbole when he described the election result as a “democratic revolution”. It was nothing on the bloody scale of what has gone on in the Arab world. Yet Kenny wasn’t too far off the mark either. The scale of the weekend’s defeat of the ruling government is rare in western democracies and unheard of in Ireland where Fianna Fail has been a dominant national institution for 80 years. Everyone expected them to lose this election after the 10-year property bubble burst causing the collapse of Ireland’s banking system and national finances. But no one was game to predict how much the fury of the voters would turn defeat into annihilation. The word landslide barely does justice to what happened. (AP Photo of Enda Kenny by Peter Morrison)

In a time of major economic crisis in Ireland, incumbency stunk to high heaven. Thanks to cronyism and incompetence, Fianna Fail has dropped from 78 seats to a likely 21. Minor governing partners the Greens have been wiped off the map losing all six seats showing what happens when an environmental movement becomes just another political party. FF have plummeted from the biggest party in the land, to a precarious rural rump. They may not even be the official opposition, if the large batch of newly elected left-wing independents manage to cobble together some sort of coalition.

The disaster was most remarkable in Dublin where FF was almost completely wiped out. Outgoing Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan clung on to his seat but he was the only successful candidate as a dozen others fell. FG did well as expected but not as well as Labour and the independents; it was as the Irish Examiner said “a sharp turn to the left in the capital”.

My home town of Waterford was a microcosm of the sea change that infected Irish politics. Mostly working class Waterford would usually elect 2 FF, 1 FG and 1 Labour in a stable and predictable 4-seat constituency that covers the city and county. Seeing the way the wind was blowing, FF only put forward one candidate this time round, experienced TD Brendan Kenneally. Most people, myself included, expected Waterford to end up electing 2 FG, 1 FF and 1 Labour. But FF’s 2007 vote of 46.5 percent in 2007 collapsed to 13.9 percent in 2011. Left wing independent John Halligan (a popular former Mayor) polled 10.3 percent but overcame Kenneally on the 11th count with the help of preferences to join 2 FG and 1 Labour member. For the first time in the history of the party, FF does not have anyone in Dail Eireann from Waterford.

But if FF is receiving last rites, the result is not the death knell of Irish nationalist politics. Sinn Fein may win as many as 10 seats doubling their representation including the election of party leader Gerry Adams who topped the poll in Louth. Their successes were in the northern republican strongholds of Louth, Donegal and Cavan though they also advanced in working class areas of Dublin.

The new government is almost certainly going to be a coalition of Enda Kenny’s Fine Gael and Eamon Gilmore’s Labour Party. As J.G. Byrne put it on Twitter at the weekend, “saying bye-bye FF and hello FG bit like beating cancer only to be told you now have incurable syphilis”. Immense financial and economic issues await the incoming administration. The debt crisis is escalating out of control with the bailout of the Anglo Irish bank expected to cost €34 billion. The strings attached to the €84 billion IMF and EU bailout are severe with government spending to cut by a fifth by 2014 and taxes to rise substantially. FG and Labour have differing views how best this can be achieved though neither suggest defaulting on the debt.

Writer Ruth Dudley Edwards is pessimistic the new coalition will be much better at managing the budget than the regime it replaced. Fine Gael, she said, was no more ideological than Fianna Fail, and is similarly awash with teachers and lawyers with almost no experience of government. Labour, she said, was led and dominated by the trade unions resisting change or cuts in the bloated, secretive and inefficient public services. “It is doubtful if a look at the books will turn its leader into Nick Clegg,” she wrote for her British audience.

A likely trajectory of this government is four years of hardship, bending over to receive its punishment as bankers in Brussels and Frankfurt spank Ireland for its profligacy in the good years. Perhaps the change will act as a placebo and install a badly needed sense of confidence. If that doesn’t work, the electorate will turn on Fine Gael with the same savagery it meted out to Fianna Fail. If the nationalist or socialist parties (or perhaps a nationalist socialist party) ever get hold of the levers of power then there really will be a democratic revolution.

Soldiers without destiny: Fianna Fail set for Irish election massacre

Age old certainties in Irish politics are about to end on Friday week. Fianna Fail has been the dominant force and the largest party in Dáil Éireann at every general election since 1932. They have have ruled the country for all but 19 of the past 79 years. The party’s leaders and members have become wedded to power and have developed a born to rule mentality over the years. With the aid of coalitions, Fianna Fail has formed government for last 14 years. But all that is about to change on 25 February. Irish voters are angry and are about to deliver a shellacking to the soldiers of destiny. (photo by infomatique)

Junior coalition partners the Greens can also expect to be punished as incumbent parties take the blame for the fall of the Celtic Tiger economy over the last three years. The question is only whether the main opposition Fine Gael will win outright or more likely form a coalition with the Labour Party. The two parties joined together when the voters booted Fianna Fail out of office in 1973, 1981 and 1982. But in none of those elections was Fianna Fail hammered in a way expected on Friday week.

If the latest opinion polls are any guide, Fianna Fail with 17 percent of the vote could end up winning with as few as 25 seats in the 166 seat parliament (26 with the sitting ceann comhairle (speaker) Seamus Kirk who is automatically reelected). Fine Gael on the other hand with twice as much support are favoured to take around 71 seats but could win as many as 80 putting them within striking distance of an unprecedented outright victory.

More realistically they will rely on Eamon Gilmore’s Labour to form a new Government. Some polls have shown Labour as the most popular party and Gilmore’s own profile has occasionally made him the most popular politician in the country. It is almost impossible for them to shrug off their mantle as junior coalition partners and it is difficult to see them becoming the largest party. But they will break another record, as they take more seats than Fianna Fail for the first time since de Valera first took FF to the ballot box in the 1920s.

The parallels with the 1973 election are most stark. By that time Fianna Fail had been in power for 16 years. Under the leadership of economic guru Dr T.K. Whitaker, Ireland had risen out of post war penury during the sixties as standards of living and education rose. Innovative marketing launched the country as a world tourist destination and attractive taxation measures brought foreign capital to Irish shores. But with entry into the EEC, the collapse of the Bretton-Woods agreement and the looming oil crisis, old Irish certainties were changing. Despite (or perhaps because of) the IRA Arms Crisis, Fianna Fail actually increased their vote in that election but lost power 73 seats to 68. Four years of Coalition austerity packages later, the voters forgave Fianna Fail and they won a landslide victory in 1977.

Since Fianna Fail last regained power in 1997, they have also presided over many boom years, perhaps the best yet. Successive tribunals found large-scale corruption was endemic, but voters didn’t punish this behaviour because they were doing well. Personal wealth exploded over the life of the Celtic Tiger, at its peak five years before and after the millennium. But risk taking also increased exponentially. Debts rose to match growing exports. By July 2008, the Irish Independent calculated the average household was borrowing €158 for every €100 earned. In the good times, which were just ending as that article was written, that didn’t matter. Equity was rising rapidly to match the debt and bankers were happy to allow their clients cheap credit to gamble on what seemed like unloseable odds. The banks themselves were equally reckless so weren’t in a position to call the kettle black.

But when the 2007 credit crunch on subprime mortgages became the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, everything suddenly turned toxic. The lines of credit that had sustained a long building boom suddenly dried up. With creditors calling in loans, previous paper-wealth disappeared in a moment as property prices collapsed. Consumer confidence was shot to pieces and nobody was buying.

This was probably bad enough to cost any government its job, but the Irish Government compounded its mistakes with its handling of the financial crisis. Initially their promise to keep the financial institutions solvent was deemed a successful ploy to stop a run on the banks. But when the extent of the debt they had guaranteed for was revealed, it was obvious the Irish were in too deep. Rescue packages from the IMF and the European Central Bank came as they always do – with strings attached. Austerity was the order of the day, leaving average voters with a bad taste in their mouths. Why should they suffer for the excesses of the moneyed class?

It’s tempting to think that history will repeat itself in the way it did after 1973. The new FG/Labour government will be forced to continue austerity programs of the old government and will probably add a few of their own. The Minister for Finance will once again become the Minister for Hardship. But there are obvious differences from 1973 too. In 1973 FF were narrowly beaten, this time they will be smashed to pieces. This time too it may take longer for personal finances to recover to their 2000 highs, if ever.

Professor of Economics at University College Dublin Morgan Kelly predicts the crisis will mean the end of Fianna Fail / Fine Gael civil war politics and the rise of hard right parties looking for someone to blame. Sinn Fein may also provide an attractive nationalist alternative to voters that is not laden in xenophobia. No one knows what they really stand for beyond the Taiwanese impossibility of getting a 32-county republic. But Fianna Fail survived that handicap for 80 years so there is no reason that might not work for Sinn Fein too.

Southern Sudan set for independent path

Southern Sudanese leaders have called for locals to warmly welcome Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir as he visits the region five days before a referendum is held to secede. Bashir is visiting former enemy and now Southern Sudanese leader Salva Kiir in the run-up to the vote. Barnaba Marial Benjamin Bill, Southern Sudanese minister of information and broadcasting service is calling for a “massive reception” for Bashir when he visits Juba on Tuesday. Marial and others are welcoming Bashir because they said he has been courageous in announcing he would be one of the first leaders to accept the new nation if the result is secession. (photo:Reuters)

Bashir made the call on 28 December at a party rally in Gezira state, southeast of Khartoum. Bashir said he would be "the first to recognise the south" if it chooses secession in a free and fair vote on 9 January. "The ball is in your court and the decision is yours. If you say unity, welcome. And if you say secession, also welcome, and welcome to a new brotherly state,” Bashir said. "We are going to cooperate and integrate in all areas because what is between us is more than what is between any other countries."

The January 9 referendum is a major plank of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement reached in 2005 which brought an end to 22 years of civil war which left two million people dead. The Islamist north has much to lose if the animist and Christian south decides to split. Southern Sudan produces over 80 per cent of all Sudanese oil, which contributes to a little over 70 per cent of all Sudanese exports. Under the terms of the 2005 CPA, the two sides will equally share oil resources from Southern Sudan in the short term.

In the aftermath of the CPA, the Northern Sudanese leaders played down the prospect of splitting and advocated a “no” vote in the referendum. However as the vote nears, and the likelihood of a landslide vote of “yes” approaches, the Bashir administration has started to take a more realpolitik view of events. As the BBC reports senior northern officials have started to say publicly what many have believed for years - the south is almost certain to split away.

For the vote to be declared valid, at least 60 percent of the population must take part. International observers will be watching out for "potential spoilers". John Prendergast, co-founder of the Enough Project said they wanted to avoid the referendum potentially triggering a renewed civil war. "We have to keep our eye on those potential spoilers that will attempt to undermine the process and the aftermath of the process in order to keep Sudan united and the oil flowing from southern Sudan to northern Sudan,” he told CNN.

The Southern Sudan Referendum Commission said it is ready to process the vote of more than four million people. The SSRC deputy chair Chan Reec Madut told Al Jazeera the vote would be a week-long process ending on January 15 but did not rule out extending the number of days if mobility in remote areas is a problem. He said it could take three weeks after that to get a result. Vote counting will be done on a daily basis and results will be displayed at individual centres. Permanent residents of south Sudan since 1956 when Sudan gained independence are eligible to vote as are those elsewhere who can trace their ancestry to an established south Sudan tribe.

Not everyone is favour of secession with the Misseriya tribe dead set against it. The Misseriya are one of two dominant tribes in the province of Abyei while the other, the Dinka, want to go with Southern Sudan. Bishtina Mohammed El Salam of the Misseriya is threatening war if the Dinka get their way. The status of Abyei is one of the most contentious elements of the CPA. An international court in The Hague redrew the border to give important oil fields to the north but some Misseriya on the wrong side of the fence are still not happy. But the south holds a symbolic attachment to the region, as many of its leading figures come from there, including Salva Kiir.

One Southern Sudanese intellectual is warning of the danger the new nation could become another Somalia, riven apart by ethnic strife. Zechariah Manyok Biar, writing in Allafrica.com said Southern Sudan could descend into chaos if it abandoned the principles of democracy “that brought us this far”. Biar warned against returning to the old way of doing things in Sudan. “This old way of doing things is coup d'état,” he said. “When leaders take power by coup, they disregard the views of citizens because citizens do not have a say in who should be their leader when leaders take power by force.”

With the Abyei region, border demarcation and other post referendum arrangements still up for grabs, it is just as well relations between Kiir and Bashir are cordial - the difficult task of nationhood will need all the help it can get. As the Algerian revolutionary leader Larbi Ben-M’Hidi warns in the classic post-colonial film The Battle of Algiers said. “It’s hard enough to start a revolution, even harder to sustain it, and hardest of all to win it. But it’s only afterwards, once we’ve won, that the real difficulties begin.”

Laurent Gbagbo thumbs nose at international condemnation in Ivory Coast

The US and EU has issued a travel ban on Ivory Coast president Laurent Gbagbo after he refused to concede defeat in the 28 November run-off election. The US, EU, UN, and the AU have all recognized Gbagbo's challenger Alassane Ouattara as the winner of that election. Violence broke out last week when Ouattara’s supporters fought with Gbagbo’s security forces. The possibility is increasing of a return to the civil war fought between north and south of the country in the early half of the decade. (Photo: Issouf Sanogo/AFP/Getty)

But Gbagbo shows no sign of bowing to international pressure. Instead his troops have cut off food, water and medical help to Ouattara who has been holed up in the Golf Hotel in Abidjan since the election guarded by UN peacekeepers. UN observers in Ivory Coast say Gbagbo has ordered at least 50 murders and abducted many more in the last week. Gbagbo used state-controlled media to portray the calls for his departure as a foreign plot to control the country’s rich natural resources. He has also started to harass UN operatives after the Security Council extended the mandate of 8,650 peacekeepers until the end of June.

This year’s election was intended as a way of drawing a line under eight years of division between the north and south of the country which remains the world’s leading producer of cocoa. The civil war began in 2000 after a military coup which ousted President Henri Konan Bedie. Ouattara, a former Prime Minister and a Muslim, had intended to stand for the election due that year. But coup leader General Guei established criteria that all candidates had to have two Ivorian parents. Courts barred Ouattara on the grounds his mother was from Burkina Faso. Gbabgo eventually won the election but Ouattara has been a thorn in his side ever since.

Attempts to run another election since 2005 were hampered by continuing violence in the north of the country. In the first round in October 2010 Gbagbo came first with 38 percent and Ouattara was second with 32 percent. With neither reaching 50 percent, a run-off was required. Third placed Bedie was eliminated on 25 percent amid the inevitable claim the vote was rigged. In the run-off election at the end of November, provisional results showed Gbagbo had lost by nearly 10 percent.

Before the highest court in the land, the Constitutional Council, could validate any results, Electoral Commission boss Youssouf Bakayok appeared on France24 news channel without the approval of the other 30 members of the Commission, and announced a victory for Ouattara. But when the full Constitutional Council met, they decided to cancel thousands of votes from the north which was Ouattara's stronghold.

The Council declared Gbagbo the winner with 51 percent of the vote. The news was greeted with international condemnation. Obama’s press secretary Robert Gibbs said Outtara was the rightly and justly elected President and said the US ready to impose targeted sanctions individually and with other countries against Gbagbo who “continues to cling to power illegitimately.” “That election was clear. Its result was clear. And it’s time for him to go,” Gibbs said.

France joined the chorus of condemnation. The former colonial power still has many interests in the country and has a 950-strong security force posted there separate to the UN peacekeepers. French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said their troops would defend themselves should they come under attack. President Sarkozy said the results show a clear and incontestable victory for Alassane Ouattara. A president has just been elected in the Ivory Coast. That president is Ouattara.” The message has yet to get through to Laurent Gbagbo.

Burma buys time with sham election

To nobody’s great surprise, Burmese military rulers had a sweeping victory in last week’s election. With the last democratically elected leader of the country under house arrest for the last eight years and her party forcibly disbanded, few outside the remote capital Naypyidaw had any faith in the election’s validity. The country has been ruled undemocratically since 1962 by a military proxy party under several different names. It annulled the unfavourable result of the one free election it had in the last 48 years. It was little surprise then to hear they picked up 80 percent of the seats this time round. (picture: SOE THAN WIN/AFP/Getty Images)

But it took a while for even this news to seep out. Silent for three days after the election, State Television finally announced on Wednesday top members of the ruling junta, including army joint chief-of-staff Thura Shwe Mann and Prime Minister Thein Sein, were among those who won seats in Parliament.

We only have State Media’s word for what happened as foreign reporters are not allowed in the country. The tightly controlled local media only takes the Government’s side when it is forced to take a side at all. Yet the people of Burma are not stupid and word of mouth ensures everyone knows what is really happening. A brave few like Muang San strapped on a hidden camera as he went to vote. “I’m a journalist,” he said. “It’s my duty to show the world what is happening in Burma.”

The main opposition party led by the imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi boycotted the election. The Government retaliated by her National League for Democracy party. A breakaway offshoot called the National Democratic Front contested the election against the Government. With no press, no charismatic leader, no scrutiny of the polls and ten times fewer candidates, they were soundly trounced. “The Burmese junta hosted this election in order to whitewash itself internationally," said a banana seller at a market near the biggest city Rangoon.

This overlooks the fact that even this sham of an election has given voters the rare chance to voice their opinions and gain insights into a political culture stunted by an authoritarian government. The Government may struggle to put the genie back in the bottle. But the banana seller’s cynical analysis is mostly spot on.

The very fact an election was held, however irregular, gives the regime kudos and useful bargaining chips in its key relations with other ASEAN countries and China. Due to the repeated criticism of the US and the EU, Burma has become ASEAN’s albatross the association of south east Asian nations has survived due to its policy of turning the other cheek to member excesses but are under enormous pressure to get Burma to conform to international norms. ASEAN countries have offered guarded support for the elections. The real benefit is to give Asean an excuse to ignore further criticisms of the Naypyidaw regime.

The regime itself can also afford to ignore the criticisms. Burma spends at least 40 percent of its national budget on the military compared to 0.4 percent on healthcare and 0.5 percent on education. Its standing army of 500,000 soldiers is the largest in south east Asia. Foreign powers are queuing up to take their money.

In 2009, Burma signed a contract with Russia for the purchase of 20 MiG-29 jet fighters at a cost of nearly US $570 million and many of Burma's future nuclear military purchases may come from fellow rogue state North Korea. China is also a huge contributor as Burma’s third-largest trading partner and provides extensive military, economic and diplomatic support.

While fellow generals across Asia get cosy with the junta tatmadaw, the biggest thorn in their side remains the frail but immensely courageous activist Suu Kyi. The 65-year-old Nobel Peace Prize laureate, democracy activist and daughter of the country’s founder is apparently scheduled to be released Saturday from house arrest. Most observers remain sceptical this will happen as she has been in detention for 15 of the last 21 years despite repeated calls from the international community to release her. A bad sign is today’s decision to reject her appeal against house arrest by the politically motivated Burma’s Supreme Court.

Not all the regime’s enemies are in prison. In the hills, army forces still fight with ethnic groups that don’t want to be a part of Myanmar. Karen separatists are causing havoc on the border with Thailand. Thailand is concerned not because it wants to see a new Karen state, but because unrest at the Mae Sot-Myawaddy crossing is causing economic losses estimated to be in the region of 10 million baht (almost $400,000) this year. The Karen National Union has said it will now join up with five other ethnic rebel groups: the Kachin Independence Army, the Karenni National Progressive Party, the Mon New State Party and the Shan State Army-North.

Burma, for all its half a million strong army, is unable to crush these six ethnic revolt. Neither can the compliant media stop the grumbling on the streets of Rangoon. Like any Government that rules by fear, the Burmese junta philosophy is driven by desperate fear it will be overthrown. It has to prove the election victory is not pyrrhic, otherwise its enemies will strike stronger than ever. But at the very least it buys them more time to plan the counter-attack. The paranoid tragedy that is Burma’s politics still has a few acts to go before the curtain falls.

So far, Somare: Papua New Guinea adjourns democracy

Confusion reigns in Papua New Guinea as conflicting rumours abound whether long-standing Prime Minister Michael Somare is about to resign. Port Moresby’s Courier Mail said Somare is planning to relinquish the party leadership by the time of the National Alliance party's national convention on 14 August. The paper quote Deputy PM Don Polye who said Somare made his decision during a party caucus meeting last week. Polye said Somare would reshuffle the government in the next two weeks and would step aside either before or at the convention.

However, the ABC is reporting National Alliance party spokesperson Stephen Pokawin has denied the newspaper’s report. All Pokawin would confirm was that the party's leadership would be the main topic of discussion at the convention with Polye ready to make a bid for the top job. Pokawin, who is the National Alliance Party's general secretary, says the party constitution prevents Somare from contesting the leadership for a third time, having won elections for the National Alliance in 2002 and again in 2007. Somare was also the country's first PM in 1975 and won again in 1982. The next election is due in 2012.

Somare’s recent actions show little sign of a man wanting to step aside any time soon. Last week he chose eight new Government ministers after three key figures including deputy Puka Temu left to form a new party on Monday. Their aim was to move a vote of no confidence and form a new government. Polye was promoted to take Temu’s job and with his help Somare hung on to defeat the no confidence motion 64-45 to remain Prime Minister.

Badly shaken by the vote, Somare adjourned the parliament for four months on Wednesday. The Speaker Jeffrey Nape adjourned the house until mid November despite the opposition's claim it had enough votes to stop the adjournment. Nape, an ally of Somare refused to count the “no” votes and called for the adjournment. The decision caused an uproar in the parliament with cries of “dictatorship”. This angered Somare so much he rose across the floor and pointed at Opposition member Sam Basil shouting “Bai mi kilim yu autsait” which translated meant “I will kill you outside”. Somare was restrained by his son Arthur.

With Michael Somare now 74 years old, many see Arthur as his logical groomed successor. The National editorialised that Arthur is the most senior MP from the Mamose (a region which covers Sepik, Madang and Morobe). The National said the son lives in the shadow of his famous father and won’t emerge till “the shadow moves on”. But the National also acknowledges this outcome would case “much disgruntlement, particularly from the Mamose faction that feels it is past time power were not centralised in the Sepik or with the Somare family.”

New Deputy Don Polye, meanwhile, draws his support from the Central Highlands in the province of Enga. It appears Polye reneged on a deal with long standing deputy Puka Temu for them to both walk out on Somare’s Government. Polye was rewarded with the deputy role, a role The Australian’s Asia-Pacific editor Rowan Callick believes will cement Somare in power till the 2012 election.

New Opposition leader Puka Temu is not so sure. This is the second time in two years Somare has adjourned parliament for several months to stop a no confidence vote and Temu has had enough. He is calling for Somare to quit now for the good of Papua New Guinea. "They call him the 'father of the nation' but he and his family are destroying the nation," he said. "They break laws, they treat parliament like a joke. Is this what PNG wants? No, they want an end to this." Temu said they would continue lobbying ministers and MPs who remain on the fence. "We have 45, all we need is 55," he said.

Guinea election candidates allege fraud

Supporters of the third placed candidate in Guinea’s presidential election have taken to the streets of the capital in protest at his expulsion from the run-off ballot. The protesters defied a Government ban on demonstrations as they claimed ex-prime minister Sidya Toure was cheated out of a top two place in the 27 June election that would have earned him a place in the run-off on 18 July. 3,000 people – mostly women marched in front of the electoral commission and the Supreme Court offices in Conakry chanting "Sidya was cheated" and "we want Sidya for the second round" before being sprayed with tear gas. (photo: UK Reuters)

Toure finished third in last month’s poll which was generally believed to be the first free election in Guinea’s 50 year history. Toure picked up 16 percent of the vote and was pipped by another former PM Cellou Dalein Diallo who took 40 percent and Alpha Conde who took 21 percent. Toure claims the second-placed Conde “stuffed the ballots” in his party’s stronghold area which prevented Toure from finishing second. Toure released a statement saying results from several polling stations and constituencies were manipulated in favour of Conde. Many of the other losing 21 candidates and their parties also alleged irregularities in what is becoming a depressingly familiar story for African elections.

The news came as US President Obama congratulated the country on holding its first election since independence from France in 1958. Obama said many people feared the country become unstable again after the 28 September massacre last year of people protesting against the then military leader Moussa Dadis Camara. “The Guinean people, however, demonstrated extraordinary courage and determination to pull their country out of crisis, and to chart a new course toward a democratic future,” said Obama. “They were supported by the leadership of Interim President General Sekouba Konate, who has focused intensely and urgently on transitioning the country to civilian rule.”

After Camara was deposed in December, Konate flew back from exile in Lebanon to take over. Konate was widely praised for overseeing a free and fair vote last month with a near 80 percent turnout. On Tuesday however, he announced he was resigning as chairman of the transition and asked the contact group and the international community to appoint a new president to lead it. Though he was eventually talked out of it, Konate was angry at accusations of fraud against him brought by Toure’s supporters. It required a phone call from Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade to convince him to stay in power until the end of the presidential election and the proclamation of the final results.

The run-off poll is bound by the constitution to be held on 18 July. But given the delay in announcing the results of the first round, the run-off may be delayed to give more time to fix deficiencies in technical expertise in the stretched electoral commission. Provisional results from the earlier election were delayed because of logistical, transport and security difficulties. Losing candidates also had eight days from Monday to lodge formal complaints with the Supreme Court, which will rule on the validity of the election within another three days. But the delay is unlikely to help Toure’s cause despite his protesting women. Election observers from the EU and the Carter Centre said they were broadly satisfied with the vote saying irregularities were caused by logistical problems. It will take a lot longer however to fix problems caused during the decades of mismanagement under the dictator Lansana Conte who died in December 2008.

Noynoy phenomenon takes another Aquino to Philippines presidential victory

Britain wasn’t the only country to get a change of leadership this week. In the Philippines Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III was headed for a landslide victory in the presidential election. His opponent former President Joseph Estrada has not yet conceded defeat but with 88 percent of the vote counted Aquino is five million votes clear with over 40 percent of the vote. Aquino has chosen not to claim victory until Congress proclaims him the winner of Monday’s election but he did say he was preparing to take over from sitting President Gloria Arroya who was constitutionally barred from seeking a third term.

If the name of 50-year-old Aquino is familiar then so it should be. The family has been involved in Filipino politics for several generations. His father Benigno Aquino was an opposition senator in the Marcos era who was assassinated in 1983 as he stepped off a plane in Manila after returning from exile. Aquino senior’s death pushed his wife Corazon Aquino into the spotlight and she subsequently ascended to the presidency after Marcos’s 20 year regime was ended three years later. Their son Benigno known as “Noynoy” was wounded during a failed coup attempt in 1987 but otherwise steered clear of politics during his mother’s six year presidency.

But by 1998 the lure of getting involved in the family business proved too strong and Noynoy won a seat in the House of Representatives, Philippines’ lower house. He worked his way up serving in various parliamentary committees and was elected the maximum three terms. In 2007 he moved to the Senate endorsed in TV ads by his mother. While his profile was increasing, no-one spoke of him as presidential material until Corazon Aquino died on 1 August 2009 after a year long battle with cancer. The so-called “Noynoy Phenomenon” took off as the country mourned his mother. He secured his presidential nomination against party chief Senator Mar Roxas and his presidential campaign was propelled by support from the Noynoy Aquino for President Movement a rainbow group of lawyers and activists.

The Huffington Post’s Virginia Moncrieff said Aquino appears the most unlikely person to win an election by a landslide given his “penchant for badly fitting shirts, dorky hair style, and complete lack of personal charisma.” Moncrieff called Aquino the “comfort candidate” who campaigned heavily on a message of anti-corruption. “In a country where crooks, charlatans, film stars, sportsmen and nut jobs routinely stand for, and get voted into office, Mr. Aquino represented a steady and secure vote,” Moncrieff said.

Aquino’s victory was declared in remarkably short order. In a country with 7000 islands, it used to take weeks to tally all the votes, but a new electronic voting system made his win apparent barely 16 hours after the polls closed. Aquino campaigned on pledges to investigate allegations of electoral fraud, corruption and rights abuses by the outgoing administration. He now says he will investigate his predecessor Arroyo for corruption. "We need to have closure on all items like the fertiliser scam. Who is responsible for this? Let's also look at the ZTE." In both cases, Arroyo has been associated with allegations of overpaying for deals and diversion of funds.

News of Aquino’s victory has buoyed international markets with Moody’s saying it sets a favourable tone for the country's credit fundamentals. Christian de Guzman, a Singapore-based Moody's assistant vice president and analyst, said Aquino’s comfortable win removed the undercurrents of political illegitimacy that had hampered Arroyo’s policy agenda. “The success of the first fully automated polls in Asia on Monday is at this time of greater relevance than the result itself, implying a strong mandate to govern for the victor," de Guzman said. Last year Moody’s upgraded the Philippines sovereign rating prompted by the country's strong external payments position and stability in the banking sector. They say these conditions will continue to provide support to the Philippines' rating over the next two years.

West and Third World disagree on legitimacy of Sudan elections

International observers have disagreed on whether Sudan’s first multi-party elections in 24 years were free and fair. While western observers and media say the election falls “far short” of international standards, African and Middle Eastern observers say it was successful despite defects. The vote was held over five days last week and results have not yet been formally announced but President Omar al-Bashir and his National Congress Party are expected to win comfortably. (photo: AFP)

Al-Bashir who took power in an Islamist-backed coup in 1989 is hoping to legitimise his rule ahead of war crimes charges from the international criminal court. The country’s national election commission said the election results due tomorrow would be delayed further. An election official told AFP they could not set a definite date because the count was a “complicated process”.

Counting of the votes began on Friday amid logistical snags and charges of fraud. The Sudanese National Elections Commission has said 60 percent out of 16 million voters cast ballots. The election was marred by an opposition boycott and the withdrawal of two presidential candidates, the Umma party's Sadiq al-Mahdi and the former southern rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement's Yasser Arman. The NCP dominates the north of the country and currently rules alongside the SPLM as part of a peace deal that ended civil war in 2005, but there are significant tensions between the two parties.

The head of a 130-member EU observer mission in Sudan criticised the poll, saying there had been "significant deficiencies". Veronique de Keyser said the organisation of elections represented a complex challenge. “Unfortunately…deficiencies in voters’ lists and weak organisation hindered the voters’ participation,” she said. “I am also concerned that polling was affected by intimidation and threats. De Keyser said that although the elections paved the way for democratic progress, it is essential shortcomings are addressed to achieve a genuine democratic environment for future elections.

The EU’s position was endorsed by monitors from the US Carter Centre, run by former US president Jimmy Carter. A statement from the centre said it was apparent that the elections will fall short of meeting international standards and Sudan's obligations for genuine elections. "Unfortunately, many political rights and freedoms were circumscribed for most of this period, fostering distrust among the political parties,” the statement read. "Ultimately the success of the elections will depend on whether Sudan's leaders take action to promote lasting democratic transformation."

However Arab League observers said the election was a “big step forward” and will become “an example for other African and Arab countries”. The African Union also disagreed with the EU and Carter Centre assessments. The head of the AU observer’s mission, Kunle Adeyemi said it was not a perfect election but a historic one. “Looking into the fact this is a country that had not had a multi-party election for almost a generation…to say they are free and fair, to the best of our knowledge we have no reason to think the contrary,” Adeyemi said.

UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon was also upbeat about the success of the election. He welcomed efforts by the ruling parties in Sudan to enter dialogue with opposition candidates and parties. The UN said polls closed across Sudan today without any major violent incidents, although there were some reported cases of irregularities and opposition boycotts. In a statement, Ban said he “encourages all political actors in Sudan to tackle issues in a spirit of dialogue, towards a peaceful electoral outcome and ongoing implementation of the CPA [the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the north-south civil war]”.

That war is heading towards its inevitable conclusion next year. This is likely to be the last time Southern Sudan voters vote for their autonomous leaders within the Sudanese election. In January 2011 Southern Sudan votes on a referendum on full independence which most observers expect will be carried. However Juba, which is set to become the world's newest capital city, has no landline telephones, no public transport, no power grid, no industry, no agriculture and few buildings. Growing fears over a post-Sudan split is leading Southern Sudan to build new trade routes. One ambitious plan calls for a high speed railway line from Juba to Tororo in Uganda which would cost $7 billion. This railway line could facilitate the movement of goods and people to and from Juba to any part of the wider East African region including Mombasa, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia and Djibouti.

Centre-right has landslide win in Hungarian election

The centre-right Fidesz Party has won power from the ruling Socialists after winning over half the vote in Sunday’s Hungarian parliamentary elections. Fidesz performed as well as the opinion polls had predicted and won 52.8 of the vote which translates to a healthy majority of 206 seats in the 386 seat legislature. The socialists were routed and ended up with just 28 seats barely two more than gained by the far right Jobbik Party. The Greens also passed the threshold to get into parliament, securing five seats. A second round of voting follows on April 25 to elect another 121 members but Fidesz already has the numbers to rule outright.

Nevertheless the second round of voting is important as they are in sight of a two-thirds majority it needs to push through vital reforms. The victory will see Fidesz party leader Victor Orban take the prime minister’s job for the second rule. The Oxford educated Orban is a veteran of Hungarian politics despite being just 46 years old. He was a foundation member of Fidesz (an acronym of FIatal DEmokraták SZövetsége which means "Alliance of Young Democrats" ) in 1988 at the end of the Communist era. He took over the leadership of the party two years later in the first free elections and became Hungary’s second youngest ever Prime Minister in 1998 after he led a Coalition to victory. He oversaw Hungary’s admission into NATO but was beset by scandals which helped him lose office in 2002. Fidesz were defeated again in 2006 but with his leadership secure Orban was in a position to capitalise this time round on electoral dissatisfaction with the Socialists savage budget cuts.

With unemployment running at 11.4 percent and an economy that contracted by 6.3 percent in 2009 Orhan faces a massive task to avoid the same fate despite his strong mandate. Fidesz campaigned on cutting taxes, creating jobs and supporting local businesses but was hazy about how to deliver on a promise to create a million jobs in 10 years. Fidesz has also said could double the deficit target set by the IMF and EU as part of a rescue package by slashing local government and implementing efficiencies in health care and education.

Besides Orhan’s routing of the ruling party, the elections other big talking point was the dangerous rise of Jobbik. The anti-semitic and anti-gypsy party came from nowhere in the last four years capitalising on discontent with the major parties. Led by 32-year-old history teacher Gabor Vona, the party tapped into nationalist sentiment of shame over Hungary’s reputation as a sick economy. Jobbik campaigned on a platform of blaming Jews and the Roma for Hungary’s ills and their rise brings back uncomfortable memories of the Nazi era. Much of their support was in poor rural areas with high unemployment and they were helped organisationally by the Magyar Garda (Hungarian Guard) a paramilitary group with black uniforms to the Arrow Cross, Hungary's original Nazi party. Though the Guard was disbanded by court order last year for breaking association law in continues under an assumed name. Vona is a founding member of the Magyar Garda.

Prime Minister in waiting Orhan has said he is deeply unhappy with Jobbik’s rise and has no plans to bring them into a coalition. He will be relying on an improvement in the economy to curb their growing appeal. Orban said good governing was the best defense against the far right. “I am convinced that the better the performance of the government is, the weaker the far right will be in the future,” he said. However it is also likely Orhan will restrain Jobbik’s influence by embracing its social conservatism and family values while adopting its tough attitudes on law and order.

Bartlett should accept McKim's Tasmanian Coalition offer

A Tasmanian Green media release today confirmed what most people understood as the Green position in the Apple Isle: they would prefer a coalition government but in the meantime won’t support a no confidence motion against the Labor Government. In the absence of a negotiated settlement or outright malfeasance by Labor, David Bartlett will be able to serve out a second term as Tasmanian Premier. Yet Greens leader Nick McKim continued to offer to negotiate with either party and said they would still hold all of their pre-election policies including opposition to the proposed Gunns pulp mill, fighting to save Tasmania’s high conservation value forests, and rolling back the government’s education reform program “Tasmania Tomorrow”.

These latter three policies are likely to be major sticking points and make Bartlett’s long-term survival hopes appear tenuous. Bartlett could strengthen that position by sitting down with McKim but he has shown little sign of wanting to negotiate what would appear on face value to be an obvious centre-left coalition between Labor and the Greens. But in the poisonous world of Tasmanian politics, Labor might have been better served seeking a Coalition with the Liberals. Prior to the election, Bartlett said he had no level of trust in McKim.

The election under the Hare-Clark rules on 20 March left Tasmania with a lower house of 10 Labor seats, 10 Liberal and 5 Greens. While such a result is common in Europe and leads to perfectly workable coalitions, here the result was greeted with consternation. Both the major parties stuck their collective heads in the sand and said working with the Greens was impossible – working with each other was simply the beyond the realm of thought.

Because the Liberals took 39 percent of the vote compared to Labor’s 37, Bartlett initially held to his campaign promise that he would have over power to the Liberals in the event they outvoted them. Bartlett began to pull back from that promise in the weeks following the election as it became obvious it was dubious from the standpoint of constitutional conventions. He was also bolstered by McKim’s offer of support despite having making no efforts to woo the Greens. On 9 April, Tasmanian Governor Peter Underwood made the correct call and offered the Premiership back to Bartlett. Underwood still retains the possibility of offering the job to the Liberals’ Will Hodgman in the event it doesn’t work out. Only then would Tasmanians face another election.

Hodgman bitterly protested the decision and slammed Bartlett for going back on his promise. But this was never Bartlett’s decision to make. As Tasmanian lawyer Greg Barns said, “Underwood correctly applied constitutional convention, which is to say he asked himself which party could provide stability and saw that the answer was clearly the ALP. End of story.”

Of course, it is very far from the end of this particularly story. However, ABC election analyst Antony Green believes Bartlett and McKim are finally discussing the possibility of coalition government with the possibility that McKim and fellow Greens MP Tim Morris may be offered ministries. Former Premier Paul Lennon is also pushing for Bartlett to offer McKim a ministry. How they deal with the looming decision on Gunn’s Tamar Vale pulp mill will be an early test of such an alliance, nevertheless it is good they are talking and the Greens may find it harder to oppose from inside the tent. Australian politicians don’t take easy to compromise but it is the mark of mature governance and often the only way things get done in a democracy.

Sri Lanka set to give Rajapakse another big victory

Sri Lanka is gearing up for tomorrow's election for a new 225-seat parliament just three months after its presidential election. Opinion polls suggest President Mahinda Rajapakse’s United People's Freedom Alliance will win the elections. They should secure a big majority and retain government following the president’s resounding victory in the 26 January presidential polls. “President Rajapakse’s victory over the LTTE has given him a huge popularity boost,” said Sri Lankan political analyst Rohan Edirsinghe. “The presidential election victory in turn has given his party a boost because most people in Sri Lanka recognise that the presidency is the most powerful office under the Sri Lankan constitution.”

The main opposition the United National Party has accused the ruling party of campaign abuses and said it did not expect a free and fair election. UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe said Rajapakse's administration had used state-owned cars and offices for campaigning and turned the government-run media into a party mouthpiece. "There was a suppression of private media [and] Journalists were attacked and abducted by those connected to the government," Wickremesinghe said. "Editors were arrested and intimidated."

The Government has also extended the country’s emergency laws by another month just two days before the election. The extension is the second since parliament was dissolved in February. The emergency has been in place since August 2005 when Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar in was assassinated. Opposition parties have questioned the need to keep the laws active since the military defeat of the LTTE in May last year. The government claims it needs the law to flush out remaining Tigers cadres.

The government is also jittery about the threat posed by jailed former army chief General Sarath Fonseka. A court martial was set to resume its hearings on Tuesday against the 59-year-old Fonseka who lost out to Rajapakse in the January elections. However the BBC has reported it has been adjourned because of an outstanding case lodged with Sri Lanka's Court of Appeal challenging the legality of the courts martial. Another court martial charging the general of breaking army procurement rules is also due to resume on Tuesday but may also be adjourned on the same grounds. Fonseka has been detained since 8 February but is still running in tomorrow’s election as a candidate from the opposition Democratic National Alliance saying that all charges against him are politically motivated.

Fonseka has his supporters. The country’s influential Buddhist monks have said the government would regret its action after police arrested a dozen of their number who demanded the release of Fonseka. The National Bhikku Front accused Rajapakse of committing an "unforgivable sin" when police beat and arrested 12 monks staging a fast outside Colombo’s main railway station in support of Fonseka. NBF head Dambara Amila said "the government will have to pay for this." The monks said they planned a mass rally to keep up pressure on the government.

But Rajapakse has gained the unexpected support of a doctor who drew world attention to civilian deaths during the war last year and who now is contesting the election for a pro-government party. Veerakathipillai Shanmugarajah, 40, was arrested for falsely spreading rebel propaganda following the army's final victory over the Tamil Tigers. Now he's running for parliament for a Tamil party called Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students that is supporting Rajapakse. Shanmugarah now prefers to talk about the future rather than the war. "I believe President Rajapakse is ideally suited to lead and rebuild our country after the war,” he said. “I will work to support him."

There are also signs Rajapakse wants to create a new political dynasty in Sri Lanka as he grooms his eldest son Namal for high office. Namal is contesting the election in the family's home southern constituency of Hambantota. Namal, who turns 24 on Sunday, promotes himself as an ideological successor to his father, and is hoping his father’s personal popularity will rub off on him and ensure a resounding poll win for his ruling Freedom Alliance party. According to his website Namal said he wanted “to protect for future generations the freedom won” by his father. Rajapakse Senior addressing a rally for Namal on Monday and images of the pair have been prominent in local newspapers and television.

The 64-year-old Rajapakse now has a second six year term to bed in his agenda and groom his successor. He and his allies are hoping to get 150 seats in the parliament election which will give him a two-thirds majority and the ability to change the constitution, though he has not signaled his intentions to make any changes yet. In his favour there is a resurgent post-war economy, propelled by a stock market that has gained more than 150 percent in 12 months, as well as accelerated development and foreign investment in government securities. Sri Lankans are likely to reward Rajapakse with a big win though he may find the hard work has just started.

Britain set for an election and a change of power

In one of those wonderfully quaint British rituals, Gordon Brown drove the short distance from Downing Street to Buckingham Palace today to seek “permission” to dissolve parliament next week and call a general election for 6 May. Brown is heartened for his four-week campaign by a narrowing of the polls according to Guardian ICM. Nevertheless most pundits expect David Cameron’s Conservative Party to win their first election in 18 years in what will be a test of new faces. It is the first election in charge for all three major party leaders Brown, Cameron and the LibDem’s Nick Clegg.

The latest yougov opinion poll has the Tories on 41 percent, Labour 31 and LibDems 18 which is typical of most UK polls which give the Conservatives a lead of 10 points, enough to win an outright majority if it is applied consistently across the country. They are also favoured by notionally redrawn electoral boundaries. The number of seats has risen by 4 since 2005 to 650. Labour had a majority of 66 seats in 2005 with 35 percent of the vote. This has been reduced by successive by-election losses to a working majority of 48. The Tories need a uniform swing of 4.3 percent to be the largest party in parliament and a swing of 7.0 percent for an overall majority. However the first past the post system complicates matters entirely: Labour got almost double the Tory seats in 2005 despite only getting 3 percent more of the popular vote and the LibDems got less than 10 percent of the seats despite getting 22 percent of the vote.

Gordon Brown missed his best chance to win an election in his honeymoon period after he replaced Tony Blair in June 2007. At the time Cameron said Brown had shown "great weakness and indecision", and had made a "humiliating retreat" but he later admitted the Conservatives would have most likely lost that election. By the end of the year, the Tories had regained the lead in the polls they had gained in the dying days of the Blair Government and never looked back.

The 2008 GFC left the British economy in ruins and by 2009 the MP expenses scandal had erupted. All parties were affected (and both Brown and Cameron apologised) to the effect the 2005 election was dubbed “the rotten parliament”. But it was Labour who bore the public brunt of the anger with high-profile casualties such as Speaker Michael Martin (the first to be forced out of office since 1695), and Cabinet ministers Shahid Malik, Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears and Tony McNulty.

In the event of a hung parliament, the fortunes of the minor parties could become crucial. The LibDems have not made the advances they expected five years ago but the balance of power offers them their best chance to change the voting rules to something more democratic. The Greens have their best ever chance of a breakthrough in Brighton Pavilion and may also do well in Lewisham Deptford. Respect MP George Galloway moves to fight Poplar and Limehouse while they hope to retain his old Bethnal Green and Bow seat too. BNP party leader Nick Griffin is likely to stand in Barking where new boundaries give him a good chance of success. The UKIP’s best hope is Buckingham where their former leader Nigel Farage takes on new Speaker John Bercow.

Nevertheless the main political narrative will be the presidential style contest between Brown and Cameron. Both men are hamstrung. As Matthew Flinders (the British academic not the sailor) wrote, Brown may have the political inclination to deliver far-reaching reform but he lacks the capacity; Cameron is likely to have the capacity but not the inclination. Both will campaign around the state of the economy and whether it is too early to jeopardise the recovery by applying the spending cuts the Tories want. But in the end, it may just be about change. The electorate is tired of Labour. Cameron will most likely win, despite his Posh Boy baggage, simply because he is not Gordon Brown.

Rajapaksa consolidates power after Sri Lankan election win

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa chose the nation’s first independence day since the end of the civil war to call on the Tamils to work with the government but he ruled out self-determination. Rajapaksa spoke in Tamil in Kandy today where he appealed to the ethnic minority to “solve our problems ourselves through discussions”. He said independence day had assumed greater significance as it was the first since the defeat of Tamil Tiger rebels last year."The freedom from colonial rule that we gained 62 years ago is now more meaningful because we have been liberated from the forces of separatist terror that marred our freedom for nearly half that period," he said. The speech was his first public address to the nation since his re-election as president last month. (photo credit: AP/Eranga Jayawardena)

But the international Tamil community is no mood to quickly forgive the Singhalese leader after his brutal suppression of the 25-year uprising last year. The Australasian Federation of Tamil Associations said the Tamil Diaspora continues to mourn Independence Day as it marks the beginning of national oppression. It says when Britain granted independence to Sri Lanka in 1948, it failed to provide a federal arrangement for Tamils and Singhalese to share political power. They say this paved the way for the majority to systematically and consistently discriminate and brutally oppress the Tamils and led to the struggle that followed. “The Sri Lankan state’s genocidal attack on the Tamil people in 1983 lead to a 26 year long armed conflict that ended on 18 May 2009 with the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam,” they said.

Similarly the British Tamils Forum dismissed Rajapaksa's claim to want to resolve ethnic tensions. Suren Surendiran, a senior member of the Forum told Al Jazeera Rajapaksa has been saying that forever. "Mr Rajapaksa has proven to be a very oppressive and discriminating president. The Tamils are not celebrating today as an independence day,” he said. “Rajapaksa was not voted in the north and east, where the Tamils are - it's their land."

And while Rajapaksa was probably appealing in vain to the Tamils in the centre of the country, back in the capital 5,000 supporters of his defeated opponent, former army chief General Sarath Fonseka, took to the streets to protest the results. Rajapaksa has sacked a dozen senior military officers in the aftermath of the election. He accused the officers of breaching military discipline and siding with Fonseka. He also said they were plotting to stage a coup and assassinate him. Some of the officers were arrested after troops surrounded a hotel in Colombo last week claiming there were army deserters inside. Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama said it was a pre-emptive action by Fonseka. “[They were] trying to occupy premises in the city,” he said. “These are not done in a democracy.”

At a news conference on Saturday Fonseka strongly denied the claims of a coup but said a number of army officers had given him inside information during his campaign. “The information given by these officers pertained to efforts by the campaign managers of Mr. Rajapaksa to defame and assassinate me,” he said. Most of the officers forced to resign were closely aligned to him. In the election on 26 January, Rajapaksa defeated him by a large margin 58 to 40 percent.

According to the BBC there were a number of factors that helped Rajapaksa win so easily. They cited his “fiery rhetoric and sure popular touch” as well as his emphasis on the primacy of his role in last year's war victory. There is also little doubt that ordinary people's sense that their streets are safer than they have been for the past 30 years played a major role. But the Tamil minority voted in the main for Fonseka and ethnic tensions remain as strong as ever despite the end of the war.

There are also fears of a crackdown on democracy now that Rajapaksa has the best part of another seven years to rule the country. Media and human rights groups accuse him of closing and blocking news outlets and harassing, assaulting and detaining journalists who it claims were biased towards Fonseka. Human Rights Watch say that since the election authorities have detained and questioned several journalists, blocked news websites, and expelled a foreign journalist. At least one journalist has been assaulted and several have been threatened. HRW Asia Director Brad Adams said he feared the crackdown was just the beginning of a campaign to get rid of critical voices before the parliamentary elections due on 22 April. "Sri Lanka's friends should tell the government that any crackdown on civil society will harm future relations,” he said.

Yanukovich and Tymoshenko to run-off for Ukraine president

Ukraine’s pro-western president Viktor Yushchenko has been defeated in the presidential election leaving opposition leader Viktor Yanukovich and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to compete in a run-off ballot. Yanukovich led in first round of voting with 36.6 percent of the vote, while Tymoshenko picked up 25.8 percent, according to an exit poll conducted by local television channel Inter. The incumbent got only 5.2 percent leaving him in fifth place behind Sergei Tigipko, a former economy minister, who gained 13.5 percent. About two thirds of Ukraine’s voters turned out to vote. It will be ten days before the Central Election Commission releases official results but there is no doubt who will be in the run-off on 7 February.

Viktor Yushchenko’s crushing defeat was not unexpected after period of legislative deadlock, lagging reforms and economic doldrums. But it represents an end to the Orange Revolution which began in the last presidential election in 2004 when he was poisoned with dioxin. Both Yanukovich and Tymoshenko have signaled a return to pro-Russian politics. Both run-off candidates have also said they will abandon efforts for Ukraine to join NATO.

Russia remains the truculent big brother to which any winner will need to answer to. They curbed natural-gas deliveries to Ukraine three times in the last five years, withheld a new ambassador to Kiev and accused Yushchenko of supplying arms to Georgia during the war with Russia in August 2008. Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, called the first round result a “win-win situation” for his country. “Whoever becomes the next president will be much less ideological and more businesslike,” he claimed.

At first glance Yulia Tymoshenko does not seem like a natural Russian ally as a close confederate of Yushchenko during the Orange Revolution. Like Yushchenko her power base is in the west of the country. Her election priorities were a fairer society and more government efficiency, and she also pledged innovation-driven economic reform and better welfare provisions. But she has forged a close relationship with Vladimir Putin who personally negotiated an end to last year’s gas cut with her.

Apparently believing herself to be the reincarnation of Eva Peron, Tymoshenko claimed her biggest success during her two year tenure as Prime Minister was leading Ukraine out of financial crisis. She told Ukrainian TV last week the country has come out of the GFC “stronger, not shattered, not in pieces, not devoid of blood, or lost," She said her government had renewed the aviation industry, built a new hydroelectric station, and led the way with agriculture production. “[We] managed to reach leading positions in the agrarian sector in the world...[and] did not let the agrarian sector to drop its production even half a percent,” she said. “We are building what is needed for the Euro 2012.We modernized factories. Yes, it was difficult, but during a crisis, things are difficult."

But despite Tymoshenko’s rhetoric, Viktor Yanukovich remains the favourite to become the next president. He is a two time prime minister taking the role first from 2002-2004. This was the springboard to the presidential campaign of 2004 in which he was backed by Russia and early results gave him a victory. His win was then thrown out by the courts after street protests and he was condemned for fraud and abuse of power. But Yanukovich wasn’t finished as a political force. He bounced back two years later to regain the Prime Ministership in 2006 and is now is benefiting from disappointment with Yushchenko's failure to stop bickering with his supposed allies including Tymoshenko.

Yanukovich draws most of his support from the Russian-speaking areas of the industrial east and the south. He has promised an economic revival, new jobs, pay raises, judicial reforms and tax-free policies for small enterprises for five years. Yanukovich is a Russian speaker with only halting ability in Ukrainian. But he is no longer the Russian lapdog he was five years ago. Since 2004 Ukraine has effectively created a distinct new national consciousness by banning Russian on national television and in university entrance exams.

The runoff election will be tight and the role of third placed Sergei Tigipko will be vital. As well as being an economic minister, Tigipko was a central banker and a former adviser to both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko. Though officially staying neutral for now, he has in the past expressed interest in working as prime minister under either. He will probably be able to name his price to guarantee either candidate victory.

Afghanistan: anatomy of a failed election

A new UN report prepared by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon shows just how protracted and flawed the Afghan presidential election was. His report released at the end of 2009 for the UN Security Council is couched in diplomatic language but its frustration is obvious between the lines. Entitled “The Situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security”, the document outlines a series of selfish actions in which none of the major Afghan players come out with any credit.

While there were over forty candidates for president, most analysts agreed in the end it would come down to run-off election between incumbent president Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister in the Northern Alliance regime in 1998 when they ruled barely 30 percent of the country. Attacks by the Taliban severely limited the campaigning of candidates while state-run radio and television heavily favoured Karzai. Allegations of fraud, vote buying and armed coercion were rife, even before the election.

And the Taliban were not sitting idly by. On election day 20 August, Afghanistan suffered the highest number of attacks and intimidation since the Taliban took Kabul in 1996. August 2009 would prove the deadliest month for US troops in Afghanistan since the invasion eight years earlier. The violence continued into September.

On 8 September, the foreign-dominated Electoral Complaints Commission ordered a recount of the election after reporting 720 instances of fraud. The Karzai-appointed Independent Electoral Commission which administered the ballot was unhappy with the order but after two weeks of intense negotiation they agreed on a partial recount using a methodology which would audit suspect ballots through statistical sampling. The IEC would administer the audit with oversight from the ECC. Neither Hamid Karzai nor Abdullah Abdullah were happy with the process and both were sceptical of its outcome.

The ECC announced the audit was complete on 19 October. The preliminary results showed Karzai had gotten 49.67 percent and Abdullah had 30.59. Nearly a third of Karzai’s votes had been invalidated by the audit. Because no candidate had received over 50 percent of the vote, a run off was necessary to be held on 7 November. Karzai’s supporters and campaign team immediately protested the revised result claiming it was the result of foreign interference. There was a flurry of diplomatic negotiations led by John Kerry and after 24 hours Karzai agreed to participate in the run-off. In the meantime, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission released their report on the election which spoke of a low turnout due to many attacks and much intimidation, especially of women.

On 26 October, Abdullah announced the conditions under which he would take part in the run-off. These included the sacking of the IEC chair, the removal of election officials and the suspension of three cabinet ministers. He insisted his demands needed to be met by the end of the month. Both Karzai and the IEC rejected the conditions. So on 1 November, Abdullah duly announced he would not be a candidate in the run-off saying the government had not met his demand for a fair vote.

A day later, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon arrived in Afghanistan to negotiate with both parties. On the same the day the IEC announced Karzai the president-elect as the sole candidate in the run-off. They based this decision on the Afghan Constitution which stated the run-off could only be held between the two leading candidates from the first round. The decision immediately sparked celebrations among Karzai’s supporters. Abdullah said the decision had no legal basis but did not challenge it in court.

Afghan donor and troop-contributing countries reluctantly offered Karzai their congratulations on his “victory”. But most statements, including Ban Ki-Moon’s own encouraged Karzai to form a competent Cabinet with reform-minded ministers, to improve governance and to root out corruption. Karzai was re-appointed for a second five year term on 19 November. In his inauguration speech, Karzai reached out to the Taliban as well as Abdullah.

But his re-election honeymoon was short-lived. A new report says that 2009 was the deadliest year yet for Afghan children. Meanwhile, Taliban attacks are getting closer to the capital while there are doubts the international community has the stomach to continue the fight. As the UN report concludes “We are now at a critical juncture. The situation cannot continue as is if we are to succeed in Afghanistan. Unity of effort and greater attention to key priorities are now a sine qua non. There is a need for a change of mindset in the international community as well as in the Government of Afghanistan. Without that change, the prospects of success will diminish further.”