The East African nation of Burundi heads to the polls today. The choice is between two political parties: the ruling CNDD-FDD (Conseil Nationale de la Défense de la Démocratie) and the opposition FNL (Forces Nationales de la Libération) – both former rebel groups that were integrated into the political system after a civil war from 1993-2005. The brutal war between the minority Tutsis and majority Hutus left close to 300,000 dead, and neither the CNDD-FDD or the FNL were signatories of the original peace agreement from 2000, rather, they signed subsequent agreements in 2003 and 2009, respectively. 

In the last election, the CNDD-FDD won by 70% of the vote, and it may not get as much this time around. The FNL will likely get more votes in the economic capital of Bujumbura, whereas the CNDD-FDD has support in the countryside. Five additional parties are running, these parties are marginal and likely will not affect the results. Some observers say that it might even be that the FNL wins. I doubt this will be the case.
In either case, the President is stepping aside, with a catch. In 2015, President Nkurunziza plunged the country into renewed violence, some of the worse since 2005, when he sought a third term, banned under the 2000 peace agreement and the constitution. This time, he bargained up: in exchange for stepping down after 15 years of rule, he will receive a 540,000 USD payout, and a luxury villa in his hometown in the north of the country. He will also be afforded the title “Supreme Guide to Patriotism” – whoever wins the election will be required to consult with him on national unity and security.

This should won’t be a problem for the likely winner, Evariste Ndayishimiye, who was Nkurunziza’s right-hand man during the war and currently runs the department of military affairs in the President’s office.

This election has been marred with controversy. Until recently Burundi, which is largely isolated from the world and even it’s immediate neighbors of Rwanda and Tanzania, had only reported 15 cases of coronavirus. However, this week that number jumped to 42. Much of that spike can be attributed to the candidates, Ndayishimiye and the FNL’s Agathon Rwasa, continuing to hold large rallies throughout the outbreak. On May 14, the government expelled the WHO from the country. Further, allegations of electoral violence abound: on May 11, a grenade explosion killed two people in the Kamenge district of Bujumbura; there have been other reports of attacks on opposition party members and the government has also indicated that it will not take the grenade attack lightly. Election observers are few and far between – indeed, on May 8 the government announced that all election observers would have to quarantine for 14 days because of the coronavirus. The quarantine period thus ends two days after the election.

For the most part, it is hard to get news out of the country today. The government confirmed that it has blocked WhatsApp, Twitter, and Facebook. Though there are no reports of violence at the polls for the moment, according to one Burundian – voting in his first election, and the first one without Nkurunziza on the ballot – “people are scared of what might happen after the results – Burundi doesn’t have a good history of elections. All we do is manage to stay inside our houses after coming back from the voting booth. Things are a bit unknown. You can only tell that the atmosphere will just erupt.” 

The pre-election violence does not bode well for a peaceful transition of power. If the FNL wins, or even does better than expected, the CNDD-FDD likely will not accept the results.
​
Though Burundi is a small country – surrounded by the East African giants of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, and Rwanda – this election has the potential to have a dramatic impact on the region. It’s history of violence is not isolated. The civil war of the 1990s between Hutus and Tutsis played out against the backdrop of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Both conflicts led to massive numbers of refugees in the DRC and Tanzania. Any electoral violence in the country could spark enough fear throughout the population to return to exile – and the regional consequences could have political and economic implications throughout the region for decades to come.

 {It's going to be an interesting few weeks for... all of us. Ask any PhD student/candidate and we can likely give you some tips on working from home (or not) and social isolation. (Self-deprecating PhD humor?)

That said - I'm hoping that maybe this whole working from home thing will materialize into productive writing and data analysis on my end [Day One has worked out just fine]. I think the key, as it is often the case, is the routine of it. In the context of writing and working from home, these past few weeks have been some of the first weeks in YEARS where I have had a consistent schedule. However, I was constantly shifting myself around  - from OISE/University of Toronto to the Toronto Public Library to Coffee Shops. I often found that those few 30 minutes or so after I sat down would be wasted as I situated myself - go the coffee, turned on the computer, and made, in general, any excuse to not start writing right away.

Now, those options are, sadly not available to me. I have an office in my home that I can work in. I'm finally using it.

There are lots of blogs and videos out there about how to write consistently, but I've found Prof. Tara Brabazon's from Australia's Flinder's University to be particularly helpful. In fact, as a whole, I recommend to the PhDs of the world to take a look at these videos. She is fantastic and has very useful tips. Other favorites include: "How to fail a PhD in 60 seconds" and "How to Manage Perfectionism". 

Here are some useful tips for writing and writers block, according Prof. Babazon.

I'm fortunate to be a PhD Candidate in a Department (NYU Steinhardt's Department of Applied Statistics, Social Science, and Humanities) that values teaching. I have a mentor who actively engages as both an adviser and acting program chair with all adjunct faculty and graduate students to strengthen teaching in whatever small ways she can. And even then it is difficult to find the space and time to focus on our teaching practice. I meet most Tuesdays with four other undergraduate TAs or Adjunct faculty to discuss issues in class, things we wish we could have done better and strategies for engaging students or working with an issue. 

This, unfortunately, does not happen beyond our group. There is no commensurate process for graduate TAs or adjuncts.

One of my undergraduate students told me this semester that she loves taking courses in ASH because she thinks the professors actually care. When I asked her who she's had as professors in our department, she exclusively listed graduate students serving as adjunct faculty. When I asked her if she realized she only listed non-"Tenured" faculty, her response was "Of course! Those are the ones that actually care." 

This issue goes beyond just making sure graduate students get the training they need - teaching is increasingly devalued across a university setting. Teaching itself rarely factors in to tenure packages. If you're a bad teacher, it likely won't effect your chances of employment. Ostensibly, universities are places where students should be taught, at a high caliber, and encouraged to think critically with texts and resources. How do we foster such learning if teaching is not a major component of a faculty's job? How can we increase our pedagogical practice as graduate students, when even faculty that we are supposed to help guide us through the process either devalue the profession or are not able to provide training because those above them discourage it? 

I hope that conversations such as this one are important. Systemic change needs to happen so that teaching, not just for graduate students but for faculty as well, can improve.

​www.africanews.com/2019/04/09/gpe-approves-more-than-us176m-in-new-grants-to-benin-burundi-and-others/