ELECTIONS come and go almost every day around the world, different countries using different systems producing different results in different circumstances, but all having some common factors; from electors being able to vote to losers faulting the system after not winning.

Turkey’s first run-off poll on Sunday was a perfect example of all the above, with 69-year-old President Erdogan starting a third decade in office after winning another five-year term in a tight finish witnessed by the world.
The first round saw the incumbent win, but missing less than one percentage point to go over the 50 per cent top.
The second round saw the usual political realignments of support for both candidates, but resulted with the incumbent winning with 52 per cent.

Like almost everywhere else, the losing candidate has claimed the system was foul and is predicting dark national times ahead, while the winner is promising continuity – and the 48 per cent that didn’t support the winner, while also accepting their loss, also remain as much in the twilight zone of uncertainty as the millions of Syrian refugees whose future featured in the campaign.
And then there’s the giant task of reconstruction, rehabilitation, relocation and rebuilding of lives and shattered dreams following the two unprecedented earthquakes in February that shook Turkey to its very foundations and exposed more than just the geological fault-lines needing urgent attention.

Sour losers have also accused the winners of hogging the Turkish media, even though both sides effectively used national and community social media platforms to get their messages across throughout their campaigns.
Interestingly, under Turkish electoral law, given the size and influence of the media houses directly associated with the contesting parties and in order to avoid the inevitable confusion that would follow if each is free to publish unverified figures, no election results are published or broadcast until and unless approved by the equivalent of the national elections commission.

That system was criticised by international media houses accustomed to publishing speculative reports elsewhere that generate the usual revolving accusations-and-denials, but in the end, they complied without complaint as the system allowed for smooth and verifiable counting and uncontested public accounting.

No elections are purely perfect anywhere and there’ll always be imperfections, outside of very-clear efforts in some countries to ban major parties from contesting elections, using constitutional measures to silence national assemblies and extend rule, or simply using armed force or forces to extend unpopular rule.

And then there’s the always-classic way in which European democracies can legally and constitutionally bob-and-weave, between traditional conventions and general elections, to select unelected party leaders to perform national executive leadership functions.
Guyana has added its unfair contribution to electoral history, from electoral marriages and alliances of convenience that change voting results, to the demonstrable values of one-seat majorities, to a ruling party actually stealing an entire electoral process and refusing to yield for all of five full months.

With perhaps the most important Local Government Elections (LGEs) ever in Guyana around the corner, and political parties and elections authorities agreeing on the house rules for the nationwide poll, the absence of what’s supposed to be the biggest opposition political alliance is both interesting and instructive.

But what else to expect from allied forces that simply oppose for opposing sake and continue to wear blinders to avoid facing the realities that stare them in the eyes?
The nation is moving on and up, forward ever in full thrust, with an increasingly-popular government — and that’s just a fact of life in Guyana today that the few who still oppose the new national thrust simply cannot deny!