In April 2001, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania entered the tenth year of a democratization process ostensibly aimed at transforming a country that had been ruled by an overtly repressive military regime. Ten years is long enough to allow a reasonable assessment of the experiment. On the surface Mauritania exhibits all the trappings of a democracy. The country has held multiparty municipal, legislative, and presidential elections, often with more than a dozen political parties competing. It has a National Assembly and a Senate. There are no known long-term political prisoners, and there appears to be a vibrant press. These attributes give the impression that Mauritania is a benevolent and tolerant democracy, an image that the government has painstakingly and assiduously tried to project. These efforts, abetted by the fact that the country usually generates little international interest, have been so effective that even perceptive observers of Mauritania have failed to understand the true nature and inner workings of the post-1992 regime. When it comes to Mauritania, appearance is seldom reality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boubacar N’Diaye (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: