Left I on the News  

If there's one thing that Americans (and most other worldwide readers of the Western corporate media) know about the recent election in Belarus, it was that it was "contested." Virtually every occurrence you'll find with a Google search for the phrase "Belarus elections" is preceded by the word "contested."

Now in fact, it was "contested" in one sense of the word. Despite finding words like "dictator" and "authoritarian" in conjunction with Alexander Lukashenko, there was in fact a "contest" in the election, with multiple candidates. It just so happens that Lukashenko, an immensely popular President, received 80% of the vote.

So on what basis was this election "contested" in the other sense of the word? Was it like the election in Ivory Coast, where one candidate was actually declared the winner by the electoral commission, but then the incumbent had some votes declared invalid? Was it like the election in Iran, where there were at least specific charges of vote-rigging, albeit without the slightest significant hard evidence to back up the charges? No, neither of the above. As far as I can tell, there isn't a single actual charge to back up the assertion that this election is "contested." It's simply a case that the winner wasn't a Western-backed candidate, and so, despite the winner receiving a decisive 80% of the vote, the CIA, Western governments, and the Western corporate media were all prepared in advance with claims that the election is "contested," thus attempting to discredit Lukashenko in the eyes of the world, and hopefully (a desperate hope in this case, but still a hope) foment yet another "color revolution" to install a government more subservient to the imperialist world. So tight is the relationship between imperialist governments and their subservient media that specific charges aren't even necessary.

A highly worthwhile article with more on the subject is here.