10 MYTHS ABOUT IRAQI ELECTIONS - WHY I VOTED
ABU BURKAN | 31.03.2005 12:19 | Analysis | London | World
There hasn't been much real debate about the Iraqi elections. A lot of superficial rhetoric, but not much substance. Here is an exploration of some of the most common objections.
1. THE ELECTION ISN’T DEMOCRATIC:
No election is 100% democratic. Democracy is an ideal state universally recognised as a utopian ideal, an unattainable dream. The challenge is to achieve a situation as close to this ideal as possible. Expecting perfection is, at the best of times, unrealistic. In situations like Iraq’s present situation, insisting on unrealistic preconditions is merely putting obstacles in the path of progress. For an election to be 100% democratic, two basic conditions must be met. Firstly 100% of the eligible voting population must vote. In addition, all 100% must have very good reasons for voting the way they do, instead of voting emotionally and on superficial issues. There has never been an election that has satisfied either of these conditions. The highest turnout in the US has never exceeded the low sixties- even in the most recent election, which took place in a time of war, it was estimated at 60%. Between 1924 and 2000 the highest turnout was 62.8%. In Germany voter turnout only reached 79% in 2002. In many cases, voters base their choice on a single-issue basis, and no authority has the right to question their reasons for voting one way or the other. Expecting an election to be 100% democratic is naïve because we are dealing with people in varying circumstances, some will not vote for different reasons, and others will vote without having a clear idea of what the issues are. In fact the more we acknowledge this fact, and the more effort we pay as individuals to vote carefully, the more this effect will be diluted and the more an election will reflect the population’s true desires. Can we use these statistics to say that elections in Europe are a farce? Of course the elections in Europe are not a farce. They may be flawed in many ways, and there may be big differences between the German elections and the British elections, but they obviously reflect the way people feel. We don’t expect European elections to be 100% perfect. Why then should we have these expectations from a population suffering in ways unimaginable in Europe?
2. IRAQIS OVERSEAS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IRAQ:
Iraqis inside Iraq may experience the reality of living there, but that does not mean that Iraqis overseas know nothing about it. There is a lot of activity going on, and constant contacts with friends and family. In many cases, people overseas support entire families in Iraq financially. In addition to the above, it is simply not true to say that Iraqis overseas don’t know anything about Iraq. For example, having electricity, internet access and telephones would enable a person to find out a lot about some of the parties and issues involved. Unfortunately there are many in Iraq who are still living without these necessities, and would not have the same access to information as others overseas.
3. IRAQIS OVERSEAS SHOULDN’T VOTE WHILE SOME INSIDE CAN’T VOTE:
Every Iraqi has the right to vote, and those who could not vote this time were prevented from doing so mainly through the threats of terrorists. Iraqis who showed interest in elections were threatened with suicide bombings and murder. The right thing to do in the face of these threats is to stand shoulder to shoulder and show solidarity however we can. For Iraqis overseas, the only hardship was the trip to the voting centre- and it was a completely risk-free activity. More than eight million Iraqis defied the terrorists, and decided to risk their lives in the open just to affirm their right to democracy and a representative government. As time goes by, more and more Iraqis will have the time and opportunity to vote and elect their representatives.
4. I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CANDIDATES:
This is not a valid excuse. People in Iraq risked their lives to go out and vote for the candidates they believed in, and you could not trouble yourself to find out about the candidates? There is information available on the internet, in newspapers, on television and the radio. Some of the groups and candidates have been around for many years. Even the most casual interest in the country would have lead to knowing a little bit about them.
5. THE ELECTION WILL LEAD TO A CIVIL WAR:
We don’t know that for sure, and there is little reason to expect that. On the other hand, the lack of a representative government can lead to a decline in central control, a breakdown of law, and perhaps the setting up of small fiefdoms and independent areas run by warlords. Staying with the status quo would have lead to a continuation of the occupation and the extension of the provisional government. Both these organisations were designed to be temporary measures and are inherently unsuitable and unacceptable as a long-term solution. Many people say that the situation at present is in fact a civil war, as there is no elected government to restore order. Having an elected government would force the outlaws to recognise the mandate of that government and the will of the people.
6. I DON’T SUPPORT ANY OF THE CANDIDATES:
In that case, you have to vote tactically. If certain candidates are going to do more harm than good, it is your duty to use your vote to reduce the amount of power they will eventually hold. It is a perfectly viable and acceptable use of your vote to make sure that a certain group does not gain a clear majority.
7. THE PARTIES ALL "ARRIVED ON AMERICAN TANKS":
Many of the parties in the last election have been in existence for many years. Some have been in opposition throughout the past twenty, thirty and even forty years. Thousands of Iraqis were imprisoned and executed as punishment for belonging to these parties in the eighties alone.
8. THE OCCUPATION MAKES ELECTIONS INVALID:
All of the parties publicly stated that an end to the occupation was one of their aims, and nobody is happy with the way things turned out eventually. An election would not have been possible three years ago, and the invasion and occupation contributed to making it a possibility. What made it actually happen was the determination of millions of Iraqis who defied terrorism.
9. IT WILL NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE:
The only way to be 100% sure your voice will not make any difference at all is to ignore the election. That way you can be sure your voice and your opinion will not matter one bit. Surely by voting and showing your support -in principle- for the idea of representative government, you will make a difference to the Iraqis who were willing to sacrifice their lives, and who waited outside polling stations, within earshot of explosions and gunshots.
10. WE HAVE TO SUPPORT THE RESISTANCE:
So far the resistance has managed to kill far more Iraqis than it has occupation troops. The highest death toll for occupation troops has never exceeded the civilian Iraqi death toll. The resistance is clearly doing more harm than good, even if we credit them with good honest intentions. The resistance has no mandate, and it is not representative of the Iraqi people. The resistance has no legitimacy, as it does not represent an elected representative government. In addition it doesn’t have a program to reorganise the country in the event of complete withdrawal of foreign troops and aid/reconstruction workers. The resistance lacks the ability to even bring back electrical power and water, never mind the potential to form a government. In light of the preceding facts, many feel that the resistance merely wants a return to the past with its unelected government and total lack of accountability.
The ideas are my own opinions, formed after serious internal debate. Please feel free to copy, distribute, translate, debate, discuss and criticise them. I am going to do my best to help them reach as wide a readership as possible in the hope of clarifying some of the issues involved, and helping people to make informed decisions.
ABU BURKAN
No election is 100% democratic. Democracy is an ideal state universally recognised as a utopian ideal, an unattainable dream. The challenge is to achieve a situation as close to this ideal as possible. Expecting perfection is, at the best of times, unrealistic. In situations like Iraq’s present situation, insisting on unrealistic preconditions is merely putting obstacles in the path of progress. For an election to be 100% democratic, two basic conditions must be met. Firstly 100% of the eligible voting population must vote. In addition, all 100% must have very good reasons for voting the way they do, instead of voting emotionally and on superficial issues. There has never been an election that has satisfied either of these conditions. The highest turnout in the US has never exceeded the low sixties- even in the most recent election, which took place in a time of war, it was estimated at 60%. Between 1924 and 2000 the highest turnout was 62.8%. In Germany voter turnout only reached 79% in 2002. In many cases, voters base their choice on a single-issue basis, and no authority has the right to question their reasons for voting one way or the other. Expecting an election to be 100% democratic is naïve because we are dealing with people in varying circumstances, some will not vote for different reasons, and others will vote without having a clear idea of what the issues are. In fact the more we acknowledge this fact, and the more effort we pay as individuals to vote carefully, the more this effect will be diluted and the more an election will reflect the population’s true desires. Can we use these statistics to say that elections in Europe are a farce? Of course the elections in Europe are not a farce. They may be flawed in many ways, and there may be big differences between the German elections and the British elections, but they obviously reflect the way people feel. We don’t expect European elections to be 100% perfect. Why then should we have these expectations from a population suffering in ways unimaginable in Europe?
2. IRAQIS OVERSEAS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IRAQ:
Iraqis inside Iraq may experience the reality of living there, but that does not mean that Iraqis overseas know nothing about it. There is a lot of activity going on, and constant contacts with friends and family. In many cases, people overseas support entire families in Iraq financially. In addition to the above, it is simply not true to say that Iraqis overseas don’t know anything about Iraq. For example, having electricity, internet access and telephones would enable a person to find out a lot about some of the parties and issues involved. Unfortunately there are many in Iraq who are still living without these necessities, and would not have the same access to information as others overseas.
3. IRAQIS OVERSEAS SHOULDN’T VOTE WHILE SOME INSIDE CAN’T VOTE:
Every Iraqi has the right to vote, and those who could not vote this time were prevented from doing so mainly through the threats of terrorists. Iraqis who showed interest in elections were threatened with suicide bombings and murder. The right thing to do in the face of these threats is to stand shoulder to shoulder and show solidarity however we can. For Iraqis overseas, the only hardship was the trip to the voting centre- and it was a completely risk-free activity. More than eight million Iraqis defied the terrorists, and decided to risk their lives in the open just to affirm their right to democracy and a representative government. As time goes by, more and more Iraqis will have the time and opportunity to vote and elect their representatives.
4. I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CANDIDATES:
This is not a valid excuse. People in Iraq risked their lives to go out and vote for the candidates they believed in, and you could not trouble yourself to find out about the candidates? There is information available on the internet, in newspapers, on television and the radio. Some of the groups and candidates have been around for many years. Even the most casual interest in the country would have lead to knowing a little bit about them.
5. THE ELECTION WILL LEAD TO A CIVIL WAR:
We don’t know that for sure, and there is little reason to expect that. On the other hand, the lack of a representative government can lead to a decline in central control, a breakdown of law, and perhaps the setting up of small fiefdoms and independent areas run by warlords. Staying with the status quo would have lead to a continuation of the occupation and the extension of the provisional government. Both these organisations were designed to be temporary measures and are inherently unsuitable and unacceptable as a long-term solution. Many people say that the situation at present is in fact a civil war, as there is no elected government to restore order. Having an elected government would force the outlaws to recognise the mandate of that government and the will of the people.
6. I DON’T SUPPORT ANY OF THE CANDIDATES:
In that case, you have to vote tactically. If certain candidates are going to do more harm than good, it is your duty to use your vote to reduce the amount of power they will eventually hold. It is a perfectly viable and acceptable use of your vote to make sure that a certain group does not gain a clear majority.
7. THE PARTIES ALL "ARRIVED ON AMERICAN TANKS":
Many of the parties in the last election have been in existence for many years. Some have been in opposition throughout the past twenty, thirty and even forty years. Thousands of Iraqis were imprisoned and executed as punishment for belonging to these parties in the eighties alone.
8. THE OCCUPATION MAKES ELECTIONS INVALID:
All of the parties publicly stated that an end to the occupation was one of their aims, and nobody is happy with the way things turned out eventually. An election would not have been possible three years ago, and the invasion and occupation contributed to making it a possibility. What made it actually happen was the determination of millions of Iraqis who defied terrorism.
9. IT WILL NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE:
The only way to be 100% sure your voice will not make any difference at all is to ignore the election. That way you can be sure your voice and your opinion will not matter one bit. Surely by voting and showing your support -in principle- for the idea of representative government, you will make a difference to the Iraqis who were willing to sacrifice their lives, and who waited outside polling stations, within earshot of explosions and gunshots.
10. WE HAVE TO SUPPORT THE RESISTANCE:
So far the resistance has managed to kill far more Iraqis than it has occupation troops. The highest death toll for occupation troops has never exceeded the civilian Iraqi death toll. The resistance is clearly doing more harm than good, even if we credit them with good honest intentions. The resistance has no mandate, and it is not representative of the Iraqi people. The resistance has no legitimacy, as it does not represent an elected representative government. In addition it doesn’t have a program to reorganise the country in the event of complete withdrawal of foreign troops and aid/reconstruction workers. The resistance lacks the ability to even bring back electrical power and water, never mind the potential to form a government. In light of the preceding facts, many feel that the resistance merely wants a return to the past with its unelected government and total lack of accountability.
The ideas are my own opinions, formed after serious internal debate. Please feel free to copy, distribute, translate, debate, discuss and criticise them. I am going to do my best to help them reach as wide a readership as possible in the hope of clarifying some of the issues involved, and helping people to make informed decisions.
ABU BURKAN
ABU BURKAN
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
Death toll
01.04.2005 11:09
thanks for giving your thoughts on the matter. I agree with some of what you have said about the recent elections in Iraq and think that despite all the problems associated with them, the decent left take on the matter was not to rubbish the elections but to see them as an opportunity.
In fact it was for this reason that many of us wanted the US government to hold elections much, much earlier - instead of blocking them for two years in order to hold them under circumstances of their own choosing (a catastrophic choice for all concerned including, even them). The Bush administration sacked General Jay Garner and replaced him with Paul Bremer precisely because Garner recommended early elections.
It took considerable persistance among the Iraqi Shia to get these elections held at all - it was the threat of a mainstream Shia uprising against coalition forces that forced the Bush administration's hand.
There are some issues not dealt with here - not least the fact that while the elections themselves were relatively open and fair under the circumsatnce, real power - control over Iraq's economy, borders, foreign policy, internal policing etc - lies entirely with the US government, which has pursued harmful policies in its own interests that have severely harmed the potential of post-Saddam Iraq. The new political setup is designed to allow the US to overrule the Iraqi electorate if necessary.
Finally, as a point of fact it is not correct to say that the Iraqi mujahideen and their Bin Ladenist allies have killed more people than the occupation forces. It is true that most of the Sunni Iraqi rebels are brutal, reactionary and unrepresentative of Iraqis as a whole, and that we should not support them.
But all the available statistics from the Lancet study to the Iraqi Ministry of Health figures show very clearly that Coalition forces have killed many, many more people than the rebels.
Alex Higgins
e-mail:
respond_alexblog@yahoo.co.uk
Homepage:
http://bringontherevolution.blogspot.com
great book
02.04.2005 04:05
A Peoples History of Iraq
By Ilario Salucci
This important book offers a critical analysis of the Iraqi Communist Party and its contribution to the workers' movement and the Left in Iraq. Whether standing up to British occupiers, the monarchy they installed, or the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein--who for many years was a friend and ally of the United States, Iraqis have a rich history that has been entirely ignored by the media and pundits who supported the most recent invasion and occupation of that country.
"Sooner or later, all foreign troops will have to leave Iraq. If they do not do so voluntarily, they will be driven out. Their continuing presence is a spur to violence. When Iraq'speople regain control of their own destiny they will decide the internal structures and the external policies of their country. One can hope that this will combine democracy and social justice, a formula that has set Latin America alight in recent years, but is greatly resented by the Empire. Meanwhile, Iraqis have one thing of which they can be proud and of which British and U.S. citizens should be envious: an opposition."
--From the Foreword by Tariq Ali
"The struggle for the liberation of Iraq does not lie with the United States. It lies...among the unemployed Iraqis who, for forty-eight days, tried to force U.S. authorities to grant them an unemployment benefit and a degree of dignity. Among the women who are fighting for equality and freedom, and courageously battling against diverse reactionary Islamic forces. Among the workers currently discussing their problems, their organizations, their future trade unions, and their struggle for a better life in Iraq than that offered by past and present nightmares."
--From A People's History of Iraq
ILARIO SALUCCI is an Italian activist and journalist who has spent years studying the hidden history of resistance in Iraq.
Haymarket Books, ISBN 1-931859-14-0. Paperback 208 pgs. April 2005
the flying rivet
What ?????
02.04.2005 09:06
I'm not sure where you got that idea from but it's utter nonsense. There was no such threat. What happended to the days of some accuracy here on the newswire. Postings about Iraq in particular are so laughingly bad there mostly not worth reading. I suppose at least people have stoped talking about "The Resistance" but for too long there were many here defending it.
The blogging community has really taken off post Saddam, read them it's an excellent opportunity to hear what real Iraqis see on the streets.
Mal
Not nonsense
02.04.2005 10:29
actually it isn't nonsense. "Threat" may be the wrong word, though, it was more the potential for a major Shia uprising extending beyond the Shia slums in Baghdad.
The Financial Times wrote following the recent elections:
"The triumphalists in Washington who now claim total vindication for their almost totally bungled strategy are right to point out that these elections would not have taken place under Mr Hussein. But they should reflect that the reason they took place was the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them. Mr Sistani is the man who held the Iraqi ring." (March 5th)
As i pointed out, General Jay Garner called for early, direct elections in Iraq after the initial invasion - and the White House sacked him as a direct result. Later the US proposed creating a council to draft an Iraqi constitution consisting of direct appointees - but Sistani rejected it as "fundamentally unacceptable". In November 2003, the Bush administration proposed creating appointed regional caucuses that would select members of a new assembly.
Sistani again insisted on the principle of direct elections. In January 2004, 100,000 Shia demonstrated in Baghdad in response to that call, and 30,000 in Basra with the chant "Yes, yes to elections, no, no to occupation". Finally in June 2004, the Bush administration officially agreed to direct elections for a new assembly in a UNSC resolution. This is where the "idea" came from, and it's not utter nonsense. It's what happened.
I appreciate that Iraqis have many different perspectives on their situation.
"The blogging community has really taken off post Saddam, read them it's an excellent opportunity to hear what real Iraqis see on the streets."
Yes, this is a good development. I try and keep in mind what Iraqis are saying, thinking and talking about and hope to visit the country once again one day, but probably not until when the war is over.
Alex Higgins
Visit
02.04.2005 15:14
The Western media is providing a view of the situation in Iraq very, very different to the reality. For example did you know 75% of Iraq now has electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week something that never was the case under the old regime. Clean water is now commonplace for the majority and yet the likes of the BBC, CNN etc only talk about the water shortages in isolated areas and present it as though it is the norm. Another example is that although the major elections were covered there has been no coverage of the local elections that have seen real grass roots democracy being built throughout Iraq's rural community.
Iraq is slowly emerging from the decades of damage done by Saddam and his thugs but it will need our help for some time to come however don't listen to what you are hearing on the BBC !
Mal
explanation
02.04.2005 19:51
What it is comparing is how many Iraqis the 'resistance' has killed vs. how many occupation soldiers killed- now not even 2000.
Obviously the past two years have resulted in many thousanmds of Iraqis killed- not to mention the brutal sanctions.
Abu Burkan
Salaam Aleikum
03.04.2005 20:43
thanks for clarifying that - i misread the tenth point. Yes Iraqi rebels have killed many more of their fellow Iraqis than Coalition Forces. It was almost inevitable, given the ability of Coalition forces to defend themsleves, that a guerrilla army opposing them would turn to easier targets. That said, is still shocking to see some of them attack mosques and the Red Cross (among many others).
Their brutality reflects the unpleasant nature of their politics.
Mal,
I would like to visit Iraq again, although i will probably have to wait until i have more money. I wanted to visit shortly after the US invasion to see for myself how Iraqis would start the process of creating a new society, and i wanted to talk to Iraqis openly in their own country for the first time - the last time i went (in 2001) i almost gagged when i accidentally let slip a remark about Saddam Hussein. I was curious to see if the people i had met had survived the invasion and what they hoped to do next.
But i badly underestimated the stupidity and brutality of the Bush administration. I realised they would do unpleasant things in Iraq, but i wasn't expecting things to go downhill so fast.
A number of my friends and associates who have visited Iraq left a few months ago in near despair, feeling there was nothing they could do to help turn the situation around. Another friend of mine with family in Basra recently lost family members to the current conflict. Hopefully, the elections will mark a turning point, but i am not so sure. It's not just that so many problems remain, but that the contradictions inherent in the current Occupation have the potential to ignite another explosion like they did in April 2004 which could wreck progress where it has been made. I hope that Washington will recognise this and decide not to make itself the primary force in Iraqi politics, allowing wider international involvement and a genuine, independent Iraqi input. But i have zero confidence in the US government, particularly this administration, even to act in its own self-interest intelligently, let alone in anyone's interests.
I think we disagree on some things, but we do both want a brighter future for Iraq.
Alex Higgins