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
Comments
Display the following 7 comments