Burundi's ruling party wins every seat in poll as rivals say democracy 'killed'
Giving the provisional results for last week's poll, electoral commission head Prosper Ntahorwamiye said the CNDD-FDD party secured more than 96% of votes in all provinces.
The election had seen only "some minor irregularities", he added.
The opposition Uprona party came second with a little over 1% of the vote. The party denounced the election as rigged, with its leader Olivier Nkurunziza telling the AFP news agency: "We have killed democracy."
The main opposition party, the National Congress for Liberty (CNL), fell into third spot, getting only 0.6% of the vote.
Campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the result showed that democracy had been "hollowed out" in Burundi.
It added that the CNDD-FDD, in power since 2005, "sought to dismantle all meaningful opposition", including from its biggest rival, the CNL.
Freedom of expression is limited in Burundi and critics say these polls followed a prolonged campaign of intimidation and harassment.
Election observers from the Catholic Church were turned away from some polling centres, according to HRW.
The African Union meanwhile has been criticised for praising the "climate of freedom and transparency" of the polls, which it declared were "peaceful".
Correspondents say there was little sign of celebrations in the main city of Bujumbura after the provisional results were announced on Wednesday.
The electoral commission said the results would be submitted to the Constitutional Court, which has to then certify them and provide the final results by 20 June.
Ntahorwamiye said there were "some minor irregularities - shortcomings that came about which have been resolved - because as you know, nothing is completely perfect".
In line with the Arusha Accords that brought an end to the bitter Burundian civil war more than two decades ago, the ethnic composition of the country's parliament has to mirror the proportions of Hutus, Tutsis and Twa people in the population at large.
After this month's vote count, the electoral commission announced that an additional 11 seats were to be created and filled to remedy an imbalance - which will bring the total number of MPs to 111.
Rwanda planning to attack Burundi, president tells BBC
'Mpox made my throat so painful I couldn't sleep'
Burundi leader to get $530,000 and luxury villa
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.
Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Focus on Africa
This Is Africa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
How much will Gaza occupation cost Israel? Expert weighs in
Professor Elise Brezis estimates Gaza's annual food supply costs at 3.4 billion shekels, highlighting the challenges of feeding its 2 million residents if Israel assumes control. The annual cost of feeding the 2 million residents of the Gaza Strip is estimated at 3.4 billion shekels, Professor Elise Brezis , Chair of the Israeli Macroeconomics Forum and a faculty member at Bar-Ilan University, told N12 on Sunday. Brezis argued that the current figures being circulated about Gaza's food needs are inaccurate, as they are viewed through a Western lens. "It's like asking someone living in Mea She'arim how much it costs them to live and then giving them the figure for Tel Aviv," Brezis says. In her opinion, the cost of food in Gaza should be compared to countries such as Burkina Faso and Congo, not European nations. "You can't compare the cost of living in Gaza to a country where people dine at restaurants, buy groceries at supermarkets, and purchase shoes. The lifestyle in Gaza is more akin to that of Africa," she continues. Brezis argued that when comparing Gaza to countries like Burundi, the cost of feeding Gaza's population drops to 2 billion shekels. "If you keep throwing European food at them from planes, it will clearly cost more, but that would be a mistake," Brezis explained. She points to wartime African countries where locals survive by growing their own food as a more accurate comparison. In an interview with Professor Brezis, N12 attempted to estimate the economic cost of an Israeli occupation of Gaza. Despite recent focus on food supply issues, Brezis stressed that this represented the least expensive aspect of the process. "The real reason we won't be able to survive [in a situation of control over Gaza] is the price inside the country: 350,000 reserve soldiers. This was feasible in the early days after October 7. We're two years after that now," she said. 'If we're talking about two weeks or a month, we might somehow survive that. But if we're talking about a year, we can't afford it. The security costs would rise to 50 billion shekels per year,' she estimated. These figures also include the costs of recruiting reserves and armaments. Additionally, she highlighted the long-term economic impact of massive reserve mobilization: 'They aren't working, they aren't learning. These are the young people who represent the next generation of our human capital. The problem isn't how much Gaza will cost us, it's how much the war will cost us.' Brezis noted that even after occupying the strip, security expenses will remain high. "The military will manage the strip. It will stay the same. You won't send a tax clerk; you'll send a soldier." Additional factors increase incurred cost of Israeli occupation in Gaza Other estimates point to similar costs. A study by Ofer Guterman from the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), published last April, suggested that maintaining a military occupation of Gaza could cost 25-30 billion shekels annually. Approximately 20 billion of this would go towards military operations, including reserve days. The additional 5-10 billion shekels would be allocated to running a civil administration mechanism and providing minimal civil services to Gaza's residents. Guterman noted that prior to Israel's 2005 disengagement, a significant portion of the funding for civil administration came from the profits and taxes generated by Gaza's economy. However, in the current situation of destruction in Gaza, this source of income is no longer available, significantly raising the cost for Israel. 'You need a bureaucratic system, and that has a price,' Brezis said. 'In the '70s and '80s, Israel placed civil servants there because it wasn't dangerous. Today, they'll place military personnel as civil servants, so we won't be able to reduce much from the reserve mobilization.' As someone whose research focuses on development, Brezis also offered suggestions for severing the link between Hamas and Gaza's population. The key, she asserted, lies in addressing the high percentage of youth in Gaza, an issue she refers to as the "youth bulge." "Development and demographic studies show that in places where the fertility rate exceeds four children per woman and youth constitute 30%-50% of the population, the likelihood of war is 80%. In contrast, in countries with a fertility rate of two children per woman and youth making up 20%, the likelihood of war drops to 5%-8%," she explained. "If we don't address this, how can we discuss Gaza? There, over 40% of the population is youth, and this helps explain why Hamas took control." According to Brezis , this age group is particularly vulnerable. "Hormones are raging," she noted, making young people in Gaza susceptible to recruitment by groups like Hamas or other terror or criminal organizations. She argued that Israel must address the population growth rate in Gaza to solve the attraction of such groups. A policy that encourages reducing birth rates, she suggested, is what helped Japan make an economic leap after World War II, and also helped Qatar reduce its birth rate from seven children per woman in the 1950s to fewer than two today. "The UN deliberately avoided addressing the population growth rate, silencing groups that called for it," she accused. The solution, she argued, lies in limiting state aid to families with fewer children. "In every country with more than four children per family, there is a 'Hamasland,'" she concludes. Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Insider
15 hours ago
- Business Insider
Zambia warns $15000 US visa bond rule poses 'unnecessary financial strain'
The visa bond policy, enacted by the Trump administration, affects two African nations — Zambia and Malawi. It requires certain visitors from these countries to pay a refundable bond of up to $15000 as a condition for entry into the US and was introduced to encourage compliance with visa terms and curb overstays. The Zambian government's statement, issued on Friday, comes amid growing unease in several countries targeted by the rule, which Washington says is aimed at discouraging overstays on specific visa categories. ' While the (U.S.) government has a prerogative to initiate policy changes, the Zambian government views this development with serious concern, given its potential economic implications on trade, investment, tourism and people-to-people exchanges,' Foreign Minister Mulambo Haimbe said in the statement. ' This includes the unnecessary financial strain on Zambian nationals.' Malawi, another African nation affected by the policy, has also raised concerns over the measure. The move comes as Trump intensifies his crackdown on illegal immigration, increasing resources to secure the border with Mexico and arrest people in the U.S. illegally. Trump-era visa clampdown on African nations President Donald Trump has implemented a series of immigration measures that have had a pronounced impact on several African nations. These actions included tightening visa rules, expanding the travel ban in 2020 to cover Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan, and Tanzania, and launching a visa bond program requiring applicants from certain countries to deposit up to $15,000. The policy changes, which also imposed stricter vetting on students and temporary workers, have fuelled perceptions of a U.S. increasingly resistant to African engagement. African governments and rights groups have condemned the measures as discriminatory and damaging to U.S.-Africa relations. While Washington insists that the visa bond is refundable if travellers comply with visa term such as departing on time, critics argue the requirement disproportionately burdens lower- and middle-income applicants, while leaving wealthier travellers relatively unaffected. Diplomatic discussions are ongoing, with Zambia signalling plans to press the U.S. for either an exemption or a review of the policy.
Black America Web
a day ago
- Black America Web
Trump Moves Obama and Bush Portraits to Hidden White House Hallway
Source: STAN HONDA / Getty The White House isn't just a seat of power—it's a stage for American history and a canvas reflecting the nation's leaders. Once, presidential portraits, including those of President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush, occupied celebrated public spaces where millions could appreciate their legacies. That changed during Donald Trump's presidency, when both portraits were quietly moved to a discreet, staff-only hallway—an act that resonated especially strongly with communities close to both leaders, and provoked a broader conversation about respect, representation, and the power of symbols. Presidential portraits have always carried weight—especially Obama's, as the first Black president and a powerful symbol of breaking barriers for African-Americans and all Americans who value representation. His portrait's removal from the Grand Staircase, a place where history breathes and visitors reflect on leadership, was far more than a simple change in décor. But Obama's wasn't the only portrait to be relocated. George W. Bush's was also moved out of public view—a decision that raised questions, given Bush's notable relationship with the Obamas. Over the years, Presidents Bush and Obama, and their families, have demonstrated deep mutual respect and even genuine friendship at public events—sending a message of unity and civility across the political aisle RELATED STORY: Daughter of George W. Bush Endorses Harris What Michelle Obama Said About Trump's 1st Inauguration Could Be Why She's Skipping His 2nd We care about your data. See our privacy policy. Why was Bush's portrait moved too? One clear factor is that President Bush notably never endorsed or supported Donald Trump, choosing to be a rare Republican voice who, along with the Obamas, represented a vision of leadership distinct from Trump's. Their visible friendship highlighted a different standard for presidential behavior—one grounded in decency and common ground, traits that many saw as starkly contrasting with the Trump years. By relocating the portraits of both Obama and Bush, Trump didn't just alter the visual landscape of the White House; he signaled a sharp departure from the legacy—and alliances—these two men represented. It's impossible to ignore the political tensions influencing these moves. Trump's infamous clashes with Obama and the public 'birther' claims are well known, but Bush, too, had a complicated relationship with Trump, marked by a lack of support and public silence during Trump's campaigns. Moving both men's portraits has been widely interpreted as an attempt to minimize their presence and legacy in the nation's house, especially for visitors. For the African-American community, and Americans who value unity, this act raises real questions: Whose stories do we honor? Whose images deserve to inspire the next generation when they walk the halls of history? For Black Americans, the very presence of Obama's portrait is deeply meaningful—but the message is amplified when paired with Bush's, given their visible friendship and mutual respect. Together, those portraits once reflected a rare and hopeful moment of bipartisanship and inclusion. Removing them is more than a symbolic sidelining; it's a reshaping of the narrative about whose leadership belongs at the forefront. The decision to relocate Obama's and Bush's portraits, in the context of their legacies and their relationship, makes it clear that vigilance is necessary—not just to preserve the legacy of the first Black president, but to protect a more inclusive, honest story of America's leadership. As history continues to unfold, it's up to all of us to insist on a White House—and a nation—that honors the full truth and diversity of its past and present. LIKE US ON FACEBOOK . FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM & TWITTER . SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE . STAY INFORMED! CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER! HEAD TO THE HOMEPAGE SEE ALSO
