Great article from The Economist on the elections in Zimbabwe, which took place three weeks ago with the results not yet released, and the lack of support for a fair election from their neighbors. My favorite quotes:

Can (South African President) Mr Mbeki seriously suggest, with a straight face, that the result would have been held back if Mr Mugabe had not lost?

The rich world also seeks, with offers of all kinds of aid, to bring other countries in Africa out of their poverty. But why should it help the governments in the region that seem blind to the monstrosity of Mr Mugabe, whose venality has helped impoverish much of the rest of the region too? Why should Africa as a whole be taken seriously when its leaders, on the whole, refuse to co-operate to remove such a cancer from their midst?

It is a sad truth that the main reason for Africa's malaise has been bad government. In the past decade Western leaders have made big efforts to right the wrongs of the past, above all by rewarding and encouraging better government. They should go on doing so. But it is not surprising that Western taxpayers feel loth to be generous when African leaders en masse refuse to help boot out one of their most wicked colleagues.

After Kenya's botched election and the brutal affects (which the Economist also noted this week, other than the killings and IDP's, will include a bloated government which will cost around $1 billion annually, an eight of the country's expected revenue) an editorial in the Daily Nation asked why, with the elections decided before the vote even happens, that African's bother with the voting process. Great question, and very applicable in this situation.