The
Yushchenko-Effect.
The Yushchenko-Effect is the psychological effect, exploited by Yushchenko as well as many
before and after him, which enables the loser of an election gain massive post-election
popularity through claims of electoral fraud.
Victor Yushchenko, according to objective pre-election polls and exit polls, fairly and
squarely lost the Ukrainian presidential election, held in November 2004, to Victor
Yanukovich. His knowingly fraudulent post-election claim that he had won and that the
election was unfair and fraudulent, is a most typical example of this effect named after
him.
The massive post election protests, so called 'Orange Revolution', financed and organized
by Yushchenko's foreign backers had brought him sudden and unprecedented popularity. The
duration and intensity of the protests persuaded many swing-voters to switch their support
from Yanukovich to him. So when he was able to persuade the Ukrainian supreme court to
call a new election, in January 2005, the increase of his popularity (since the last
election) has brought him victory. As he had fairly and squarely lost in the first
election to Yanukovich, so he had also, clearly, won in the second election.
The only thing one has to ask, if it is ever fair, to repeat an election, any election,
because of the losers' claim that it was unfair, when it is clear that such claims and
protests would, naturally and logically, increase the losers' popularity?
Copy Cats
The success of the Yushchenko-Effect in Ukraine made others realize the power of this
tactic, and the power of the post-election claims that the election was unfair. After the
success of Yushchenko in the Ukraine, this tactic has been used practically after every
election in the Post-Soviet countries as well as in other areas.
Good example of the sudden increase of popularity is the Iranian presidential election of
2009. Practically all if not all, pre-election polls gave the incumbent president
Ahmadinejad a clear and massive lead ahead of all candidates. There cannot be any doubt in
the mind of any objective analyst, that the presidential election was clearly won by
Ahmadinejad. Yet, contrary to all the evidence, at least one of the losers, namely Mr
Mirhossein Moussavi, had claimed massive electoral fraud, and implied if it were not for
that fraud that he would have won.
Moussavi's rejection of election recounts and reexaminations and his demand for a new
election only exemplifies this tactic. Yes, the evidence shows that Moussavi had clearly
lost the election, but the logic also shows, that should there be a new election, the
loser of the first one, i.e. Moussavi, might win or at least make massive gains. |
|
Is
Yushchenko-Effect possible in the USA?
Since it is obvious that the Yushchenko-Effect is a very powerful political tool, why is
it not being exploited by the U.S. politicians?
There may be several reasons for this. One is that today's two and only two political
parties, the Democratic and the Republican parties have been at one time really only one
party, the Democratic-Republican Party, founded in 1792 which later evolved into the
present Democratic and the Republican parties. To keep their dominance and the monopoly of
the U.S. politics, the modern Demo-Republican Party (as they are often known) has made a
series of regulations and laws which make it practically impossible for any newly formed
and competing party to form a government. Due to this silent cooperation and joint hold of
power, the members of the parties must agree to concede electoral loss within hours of an
election in order to defuse any possibility of protests or discord. This silent agreement
is the secret of U.S. stability and the lack of post-electoral protests and
demonstrations.
Most typical example of this calming of the population was the quick and unequivocal
acceptance of loss by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election against George W. Bush,
even though it was clear that Al Gore has won the popular vote and that the 'victory' of
George W. Bush could be due only to electoral fraud in Florida, which was controlled by
his brother Jeff.
Yushchenko-Effect elsewhere
While the post-electoral problems and protests common in many countries, thanks to
internal agreements, cannot happen in the USA, the US mass media take every opportunity to
exploit and instigate post-election protests and demonstrations in most countries which
resist US control and domination, in order to enable installation of pro-US puppet
regimes.
For most countries the only way to protect themselves from post-election protests and
demonstrations is to either make all election-participants agree, before elections, that
they will quickly and clearly accept the result of the election as announced by the
electoral commission, or to make it a crime to doubt the announcement of the electoral
commission.
|
HOME
