By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan secured a landslide victory with over 97% of the vote in a highly contested election marked by violence and allegations of unfair practices. Critics have raised concerns, citing the barring of key opposition figures and widespread protests against the vote. The election was marred by clashes, military deployments, and internet disruptions, while reports of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings prior to the polls were cited by human rights organizations. The incumbent party, CCM, maintains a firm grip on power, and Hassan’s victory solidifies its longstanding rule despite accusations of authoritarian tactics.
Read the original article here
Tanzania President Hassan wins disputed election with more than 97% of the vote, official results show, and the numbers are just staggering. It’s hard to ignore the sheer dominance reflected in that figure. Ninety-seven percent? It’s a number that immediately raises eyebrows, doesn’t it? It invites speculation, especially when considering the context of a disputed election. It’s a figure that, frankly, screams of a narrative being carefully crafted, one that aims to project an image of overwhelming popular support, even if the reality on the ground tells a different story.
Considering that a landslide victory is usually seen as a sign of unity and strength, in this case it might signify something completely different. It might highlight a lack of fair competition and a potential suppression of dissenting voices. It is easy to wonder if the 3% allocated to other votes is a deliberate concession to a semblance of democratic process, or is it a sign of control to show the opposition can exist? The entire thing has the whiff of a carefully orchestrated performance, a way to maintain the façade of legitimacy.
Looking at the broader African context, the situation feels incredibly disheartening. There’s a certain feeling of déjà vu, a recurring pattern of questionable election results, of power consolidation, and of the silencing of opposition. It is not necessarily something new to the region. The mention of other countries struggling with corruption and authoritarian tendencies only adds to this feeling. It is a depressing thought.
The level of control being wielded makes one wonder about the mechanisms employed. The reports of opposition figures being jailed or barred from running certainly suggest that the playing field wasn’t level. That the electoral playing field was anything but fair and free, that the freedom to participate was severely curtailed. The fact that opposition voices were being silenced raises serious questions about the integrity of the process.
This entire situation really invites skepticism. One must remain critical, as per the rules of the platform, and seek out verification from multiple sources before drawing any conclusions. One might have to examine the claims, investigate the background, and consider different perspectives before forming an opinion. This is even more important considering the sensitive nature of the topic.
The comments, in a way, highlight the cynical undertones of such situations. It is easy to notice the sarcasm, especially when someone mentioned the need to get some answers wrong in an exam to avoid suspicion. It’s as though there’s an unspoken understanding that this is all a game, a power play, and that the numbers are often just a formality.
The sheer implausibility of the results, the almost comical dominance of the ruling party, and the limitations placed on others all point to an atmosphere where true democratic processes are being undermined. What do you do when the numbers become so inflated that they lose all credibility? What happens when those in power show a clear disdain for any level of competition?
The fact that the outcome is, as many say, “Aladeen,” and that the percentage is almost comical is a reminder that there’s always a need to look beyond the headlines, to dig deeper, and to question the narrative. The sheer audacity of the numbers is almost insulting.
It’s clear that the situation is far more complex than a simple election result. The mention of tribalism, poverty, and other systemic issues paints a picture of deeper-rooted challenges. These are issues that will not be easily solved.
In the end, this result, this staggering 97% victory, while offering a semblance of order and control, may be doing a massive disservice to the very concept of democracy, creating further instability and potentially delaying any real progress for Tanzania. The focus should be on fair and free elections, and the promotion of the kind of leaders, the kind of ideals, that will bring more growth to Tanzania.