Burundi elections: One-party parliament looms as opposition says democracy 'killed'
The ruling party in Burundi has won all 100 seats in a parliamentary election that the opposition says has "killed" democracy in the central African state. 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.Voters, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the BBC they doubted the ruling party had so much support at a time of dire economic hardship.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.
More BBC stories on Burundi:
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Why is the media ignoring growing resistance to Trump?
When hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered across the US on 5 April for the 'Hands Off' events protesting Donald Trump and Elon Musk's governmental wrecking ball, much of the news media seemed to yawn. The next day, the New York Times put a photograph, but no story, on its print front page. The Wall Street Journal's digital homepage had it as only the 20th-most-prominent story when I checked. Fox News was dismissive; I stopped counting after I scanned 40 articles on its homepage, though there was a video with this dismissive headline: 'Liberals rally against President Trump.' The Guardian, CNN and some local news outlets paid more heed. The cable network offered live video from many American cities and a banner headline: 'Millions of people protest against Trump & Musk.' But overall, there was something of a shrug about the media coverage. It got much more attention from global news outlets than in the US. The US media will get a chance to atone for these sins of omission this coming weekend when Americans once again get together, this time for Saturday's 'No Kings' day, which organizers describe as 'a nationwide day of defiance'. 'From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we're taking action to reject authoritarianism,' they say. More than 100 pro-democracy groups are involved, according to Axios. It's expected to be the largest anti-Trump protest since the start of his second term, according to organizers who are planning rallies in 1,500 cities in all 50 states. It's happening, in part, as a reaction to the military parade in Washington DC that Trump has planned on his 79th birthday and the US army's 250th anniversary. Of course, the citizen protests in Los Angeles against federal Ice agents have received a great deal of attention, although the media focus has largely been on the conflict between law enforcement and protesters. Those protests, and the deep concern over the Trump administration's action, with its authoritarian overtones, are likely to bring even more people out to rallies across the country on Saturday. I don't know how many people will show up, but I do believe it matters. And I have good reason to think so. A study from a Harvard University political scientist presents a statistic worth remembering: that, around the world, once 3.5% of the population became engaged in sustained and non-violent campaigns of resistance, change has always happened. Erica Chenoweth, the academic researcher who conducted the study, was surprised by what her team found. 'I was really motivated by some skepticism that non-violent resistance could be an effective method for achieving major transformations in society,' Chenoweth said in a 2019 BBC interview. But her skepticism was overcome as the study turned up clear results. As one example of many she cites: in 1986, the Marcos regime folded after the fourth day of millions of Filipino citizens taking the streets of Manila. Non-violent protests, she found, are much more effective – and bring about more lasting change – than armed conflict. In the US, that 3.5% of the adult population is roughly 9 million people – about the population of New York City. That's a high bar, many more people than showed up on 5 April. The encouraging thing is that real change is possible. However, if journalists consistently look the other way, the power of peaceful citizen protests can fade. In my American Crisis newsletter two days after the 5 April protests, I offered a few theories for why the media may seem so blasé. First, I posited, much of the mainstream media tends to view this much as Fox News does. The protesters are just the usual suspects – 'liberals' – doing the predictable thing. Second, many large media companies are afraid that prominent protest coverage will be criticized by the political right as partisan, and they can't bear that label. Third, corporate media decision-makers, always focused the bottom line, are fearful of losing right-leaning readers and viewers; yes, we'll cover this, they seem to say, but quietly, since we don't want to antagonize anyone. In an era in which Trump has attempted to bully the press into submission, through denying access and through lawsuits, cowardice and capitulation are all too common. In the end, it's up to the American people. Do enough of them care enough about democracy, decency and the rule of law to leave their easy chairs, barbecues and sports-gambling apps to get out in the streets and make their voices heard? If the protests grow large enough, and sustained enough, even the most reluctant media will have little choice but to pay attention. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Tanks, flypasts, missiles: what to expect at Trump's ‘dictator chic' military parade
It will be a parade fit for a king – which is precisely why critics worry what message it will send the rest of the world about the future of democracy in America. On Saturday there will be tanks on the streets of the nation's capital as Washington hosts a celebration of the US army's 250th anniversary, which happens to coincide with Donald Trump's 79th birthday. While the army has said it has no plans to recognize Trump's birthday, the president will play a major role in a made-for-TV extravaganza that will reportedly feature rocket launchers and missiles. The show of military might comes just a week after Trump activated thousands of national guard troops and marines to quell protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles. Opponents draw a direct line from that crackdown to Saturday's authoritarian display of dominance. 'He's adopted not only the signifiers of dictator chic but the actual articles of its faith,' said Rick Wilson, a political strategist and co-founder of the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group. 'North Korea: military parades. China: military parades. Russia: military parades. 'These aren't parades to celebrate a victory and it's certainly not to celebrate the United States army's birthday. This is a parade to aggrandise Donald Trump's ego. No one who knows either Trump or his pattern of behavior would think for a minute this is anything else.' The army's 250th anniversary was originally conceived as a modest affair: a year ago it filed a permit request for an event on the National Mall featuring 300 people, a concert by the army band and the firing of four cannon. Trump's election, however, led to a radical change of plan. About 6,700 troops, 150 vehicles and 50 aircraft will be in Washington for a grand celebration. The vehicles have been moved to the city on trains and bigger trucks, while the helicopters will fly in. There will be a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery on Saturday morning followed by a fitness competition and an army birthday festival on the National Mall, including equipment displays and military demonstrations. The day will culminate with a parade through the city. A total of 28 M1 Abrams tanks, each weighing more than 60 tons, as well as 28 tracked Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 28 wheeled Stryker combat vehicles, four tracked M-109 Paladin self-propelled howitzers and other towed artillery will maneuver to the start of the parade route just off the National Mall. They will travel toward the White House, driving over thick metal plating to protect the streets at some points where the vehicles make a sharp turn. The parade will also feature 34 horses, two mules and one dog. The Axios news site reported that a system used to launch rockets in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria will also on be show, and there will be a static display of precision-guided missiles. A flypast will include Apache and Black Hawk helicopters along with Chinooks. Older aircraft like a second world war-era B-25 bomber and P-51 Mustang will also take part. The helicopters are flying at a time when sharing Washington airspace is still a sensitive issue after a January collision between an army Black Hawk helicopter and an American Airlines regional jet killed 67. Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday: 'It's going to be a parade the likes of which I don't know if we've ever had a parade like that. It's going to be incredible. We have a lot of those army airplanes flying over the top and we have tanks all over the place. And we have thousands and thousands of soldiers going to bravely march down the streets.' It will be the kind of spectacle in which Trump is known to revel. He will preside over an enlistment and re-enlistment ceremony. The US army Golden Knights team will parachute in and present him with a flag. There will also be a fireworks display in the Washington night sky. Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington, said: 'It speaks to something quite fundamental in Trump's overall outlook. In many ways he is a very visual person and he is obsessed with not only how he looks but how everybody else looks as well. The spectacle of a big parade appeals to him for its visuality, if I could coin a term.' Yet Trump is an unlikely warrior. He did not serve in Vietnam, instead receiving five deferments – four for university, one for the medical reason of bone spurs in his heels. He was the first person to be elected president with no prior political or military experience. He has been forced to deny a report that he disparaged dead soldiers as 'losers' and 'suckers'. Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, suggests that Trump is using the military as a prop. 'He doesn't particularly like the military,' Blumenthal said. 'He's wary of the military. He's engaging in retribution against the military. He's fired much of the upper level of the flag officers because he doesn't trust them. 'He said he wants generals like Hitler's generals. He said he wanted to execute Mark Milley, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He fired General CQ Brown, the last chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, because he made a single remark involving racial dignity. He has no use for the military except as decoration of his own grandiosity.' Critics say the display of pomp and pageantry is wasteful, especially as Trump slashes costs throughout the federal government, and represents an effort to link his projection of power with military authority. Public opposition will be expressed in more than 2,000 protest events all over the country under the rubric 'No Kings'. Organisers say they will not be hosting an event in Washington because they do not want the birthday parade to be the centre of gravity. Instead a major flagship march and rally will be held in Philadelphia, the cradle of US democracy. Even so, thousands of agents, officers and specialists from law enforcement agencies from across the country will descend on Washington. Security preparations include Secret Service drones, 18.5 miles of anti-scale fencing, 17 miles of concrete barriers, 175 magnetometers and officers from federal, state and local agencies standing guard. Officials said the Secret Service was tracking nine possible demonstrations in Washington and was ready to respond if they turn violent. Matt McCool, US Secret Service special agent in charge, told a press briefing on Monday: 'That will be handled swiftly.' The army expects as many as 200,000 people could attend and that putting on the celebration will cost an estimated $25m to $45m. That includes the parade itself as well as the cost of moving equipment and housing and feeding the troops. It excludes costs the city of Washington will have to bear, such as trash cleanup, although the army has said it will pay for any unexpected repairs. Democrats argue that Trump is taking over the army's birthday for himself. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate armed services committee, told the Reuters news agency: 'This is Trump. This is all about his ego and making everything 'him', which is, I think, a discredit to the military, the army.' Military parades in the US are generally rare, although Presidents Harry Truman and John F Kennedy's inaugurations featured displays of equipment. In 1991 tanks and thousands of troops, led by Gen Norman Schwarzkopf, paraded through Washington to celebrate the ousting of the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait in the Gulf war. Trump has made no secret of his desire to hold military parades. During his first administration, he ordered the Pentagon to look into a display of military might after a 2017 trip to France where he and the French president, Emmanuel Macron, reviewed that country's defense forces marching down the Avenue des Champs-Elysées in Paris. Trump subsequently told reporters: 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen. It was two hours on the button, and it was military might, and I think a tremendous thing for France and for the spirit of France.' He previewed: 'We're going to have to try to top it.' But the Pentagon had other ideas. Jim Mattis, Trump's first defence secretary, compared the idea to Soviet Union-like displays of authoritarian power and privately remarked, 'I'd rather swallow acid,' according to Holding the Line, a 2019 book by Guy Snodgrass, a retired navy pilot and former Mattis aide. Trump ultimately settled for a display of tanks and other armoured vehicles during an independence day celebration in Washington on 4 July 2019. Nearly six years later, however, Trump will get his way now that the likes of Mattis have been succeeded by devout loyalists such as the current defence secretary, Pete Hegseth. Wilson of the Lincoln Project said: 'This is one more example that there is no adult in the room with Trump. There are no guardrails. There are no restraints. There are no wiser heads and quieter voices. It is all now what would you like, Mr President, and we shall deploy it.' He added: 'It's a birthday present for Donald Trump at a time when we're told we have to cut rural hospitals and cut Medicare and Medicaid. It certainly plays to his ego and his character and I don't think we should have expected anything less than this. This is what he was going to get because there are no restraints on Trump's behaviour by his own staff and his own team.'
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
Wales will overhaul its democracy at the next election. Here's what's changing
Next May's Senedd (Welsh parliament) election won't just be another trip to the polls. It will mark a major change in how Welsh democracy works. The number of elected members is increasing from 60 to 96, and the voting system is being overhauled. These changes have now passed into law. But what exactly is changing – and why? When the assembly was first established in 1999, it had limited powers and just 60 members. Much has changed since then and it now has increased responsibility, including primary law-making powers over matters such as health, education, environment, transport and economic development. The Wales Act 2014 also bestowed a number of new financial powers on the now Senedd, including taxation and borrowing powers. But its size has stayed the same. This led to concerns about capacity and effectiveness. In 2017, an independent expert panel on electoral reform concluded that the Senedd was no longer fit for purpose. It warned that 60 members simply weren't enough to scrutinise the Welsh government, pass legislation and respond to constituents. A bigger chamber, it argued, would improve both the quality of lawmaking and democratic accountability. Wales also has fewer elected politicians per person than any other UK nation. Scotland has 129 MSPs, while Northern Ireland has 90 MLAs. Even with next year's changes, Wales will still have fewer elected members per citizen compared with Northern Ireland. More Senedd members could ease workloads, improve local representation and importantly, may encourage a more diverse pool of people to stand for office. How is the voting system changing? Alongside expansion will be a change in how Senedd members are elected. Since its inception, Wales has used the 'additional member system', which is a mix of first-past-the-post for constituency seats and proportional representation for regional ones. From 2026, that system will be replaced by a closed list proportional system, using the D'Hondt method. It's a system which is designed to be fairer, ensuring that the proportion of seats a party wins more closely reflects the votes they get. But it also means voters will have less say over which individuals get elected. Wales will be divided into 16 constituencies, each electing six MSs. Instead of voting for a single candidate, voters will choose one party or an independent candidate. Parties will submit a list of up to eight candidates per constituency. Seats will then be allocated based on the overall share of the vote each party gets, with candidates elected in the order they appear on their party's list. For example, if a party wins a percentage share of the vote equating to three seats, the top three people on their party list will be elected. The calculation for this is defined by the D'Hondt formula. The decision to adopt this method in Wales was one of the recommendations of the special purpose committee on Senedd reform in 2022. Several countries across Europe use this system for their elections, including Spain and Portugal. In countries with small constituency sizes, D'Hondt has sometimes favoured larger parties and made it harder for smaller parties to gain ground. That's something observers in Wales will be watching closely. An alternative method, Sainte-Laguë, used in Sweden and Latvia, is often seen as more balanced in its treatment of small and medium-sized parties, potentially leading to more consensual politics. But it, too, has its downsides. In countries which have many smaller parties, it can lead to fragmented parliaments and make decision-making more difficult. In sum, no system is perfect. But D'Hondt was chosen for its balance between proportionality, simplicity and practicality. Could this confuse voters? One concern is the growing differences between electoral systems across the UK and even within Wales itself. At the UK level, first-past-the-post (FPTP) is the method used for Westminster elections. Meanwhile, some Welsh councils are experimenting with the single transferable vote method, which lets voters rank candidates in order of preference. So, some people in Wales could find themselves navigating three different voting systems for three different elections. Obviously, this raises the risk of confusion. Voters who are used to one vote and the 'winner takes all' nature of FPTP may be confused by how seats are allocated in Wales come 2026. With numerous different systems, the risk is that people do not fully understand how their vote translates into representation. In turn, this risks undermining confidence and reducing voter turnout. Voters will need clear, accessible information on how their vote works – and why it matters. But this is particularly challenging when UK-wide media often defaults to FPTP-centric language and framing surrounding debates, which can shape public expectations. News about Wales often barely registers beyond its borders, while news about politics in Wales barely registers within. Electoral reform often prompts broader conversations. As Welsh voters adjust to the new proportional system, some may begin to question Westminster's FPTP model, especially if the Senedd better reflects the diversity of votes cast. FPTP is frequently criticised for producing 'wasted votes' and encouraging tactical voting, particularly in safe seats. Under a more proportional system, tactical voting becomes less necessary, which has the potential to shift voter habits in Wales. If the 2026 reform leads to a more representative and effective Senedd, it may not only reshape Welsh democracy, but reignite debates about electoral reform across the UK.
