▁election , ▁and , ▁given ▁the ▁prof usion ▁of ▁parties ▁and ▁the ▁system ▁of ▁proportional ▁representation , ▁a ▁clear ▁sense ▁of ▁public ▁opinion ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁obtained ▁sole ly ▁on ▁the ▁basis ▁of ▁the ▁election ▁results . ▁The ▁fact ▁that ▁a ▁single ▁party — the ▁SY L — domin ated ▁the ▁field ▁imp lied ▁neither ▁stability ▁nor ▁solid ar ity . ▁Anth rop ologist ▁Io an ▁M . ▁Lewis ▁has ▁noted ▁that ▁the ▁SY L ▁government ▁was ▁a ▁very ▁heter ogeneous ▁group ▁with ▁diver ging ▁personal ▁and ▁line age ▁interests . ▁ ▁C andid ates ▁who ▁had ▁lost ▁seats ▁in ▁the ▁assembly ▁and ▁those ▁who ▁had ▁supported ▁them ▁were ▁fr ustr ated ▁and ▁angry . ▁A ▁number ▁of ▁charges ▁were ▁made ▁of ▁government ▁election ▁fra ud , ▁at ▁least ▁some ▁firm ly ▁founded . ▁Dis content ▁was ▁ex ac erb ated ▁when ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court , ▁under ▁its ▁newly ▁appointed ▁president , ▁decl ined ▁to ▁accept ▁juris diction ▁over ▁election ▁pet itions , ▁although ▁it ▁had ▁accepted ▁such ▁juris diction ▁on ▁an ▁earlier ▁occasion . ▁ ▁Ne ither ▁the ▁president ▁nor ▁the ▁prime ▁minister ▁seemed ▁particularly ▁concerned ▁about ▁official ▁cor ruption ▁and ▁ne pot ism . ▁Although ▁these ▁practices ▁were ▁conce iv ably ▁normal ▁in ▁a ▁society ▁based ▁on ▁kin ship , ▁some ▁were ▁bitter ▁over ▁their ▁pre val ence ▁in ▁the ▁National ▁Assembly , ▁where ▁it ▁seemed ▁that ▁deput ies ▁ignored ▁their ▁constitu ents ▁in ▁trad ing ▁votes ▁for ▁personal ▁gain . ▁ ▁Among ▁those ▁most ▁diss atisf ied ▁with ▁the ▁government