Iraqi Elections: Reasons to be cheerful

Sand

As everyone knows the Iraqi elections defied the portents of doom, and the iraqi voters demonstrated their desire to embrace the chance to vote in the first free Iraqi elections in living memory, brought about the Colaitions dethroning of Saddam Hussein. Some anti-american types are clutching at straws claiming turnout was measured by against registered voters rather than the estimated population of an age to vote. Exspressing turnout against registered voters is only the commonly accepted standard

Voter turnout is one measure of electoral participation.It
is usually expressed as the percentage of eligible voters
who cast a vote or 'turn out'at an election.The number
of those who cast their vote includes those who cast blank
or invalid votes,as they still participate.......
The use of voting age population allows for an estimate
of the potential number of voters if all systemic and
administrative barriers were to be removed.However,as
an estimate,it is not able to exclude those within a pop-
ulation who may not be eligible to register or to vote
because of factors such as non-citizenship,mental com-
petence or imprisonment.

The news coming out from the results is looking very promising. Provisional results are out and it looks like Sistani's Shias have done less well than expected, polling only 48% of the vote whilst the Kurds have done better than expected winning 25% of the vote. The secularist Prime minister Allawi came in third with 14% of the vote and is likely to lose his job as a result, unless he somehow emerges as a compromise candidate between the Kurds and the Shias. This is good news for the coalition and those genuinely interested in seeing democracy take root in Iraq as it means that the Shias cannot dictate terms to the rest of the country and must compromise and cut deals with the Kurds who are quite secular compared to the Shias. The checks and balances between social and political blocs will hopefully come into play here as they have in the forging of other democracies.

Even better news has come out today. Whilst the Sunni parties polled atrociously as expected when the main parties backed out and a mixture of sunni clerics and terrorist threats discouraged them from participating, they are now looking to accept the invitation of the the other 3 power blocs and participate in the shaping of the new Iraq.

"We can't say it was wise or logical to not participate; it was an emotional decision," said Mr Samaray. "Now the Sunni community faces the fact that it made a big mistake and that it would have been far better to participate."

This is great news, as opening dialogue between the Sunnis and the rest of Iraq is a major step towards reducing support for the Sunni insurgency. These are each minor when taken alone, but theyre significant steps on the path to what will hopefully be a free and democratic Iraq.

dahamsta

Sand wrote:

As everyone knows the Iraqi elections defied the portents of doom, and the iraqi voters demonstrated their desire to embrace the chance to vote in the first free Iraqi elections in living memory, brought about the Colaitions dethroning of Saddam Hussein. Some anti-american types...

Precisely why I rarely get past paragraph one in your posts Sand. After a pathetic start like that, the rest is guaranteed to be garbage. You seem to be a relatively intelligent person, why do you have to stoop to pathetic little outbursts like that? It's just childish.

adam

mike65

...I notice the bile has ebbed considerably of late.

The election results are proberly as good as it gets, a pretty high turnout and no party/grouping reciving enough votes to take overall control of the parliment. Compromise is a concept that been noticably lacking in Iraqi history but now its been forced upon all parties.

The road over the next 10-11 months will be tough as the first proper parliment is'nt voted for until next December the Sunnis decision to commit to democracy is of course to be welcomed though one can only imagine that the
fundmentalists will do there damdest to intimidate "thier" ppl and try to force the Sunnis out of government.

From Guardian

Secular Sunni leaders yesterday accepted the victors' invitation to participate, potentially draining support from the insurgency.

"We can't say it was wise or logical to not participate; it was an emotional decision," said Mr Samaray. "Now the Sunni community faces the fact that it made a big mistake and that it would have been far better to participate."

His party, the main Sunni group since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, was in talks with Kurds and Shias. He added: "The Sunni community will accept to share this country with others. They do not need to dominate."

Adnan Pachachi, a Sunni elder statesman, also predicted Sunnis would join the political process.

"They missed an opportunity to participate and want to make up for it," he said. Mr Pachachi's was one of two Sunni parties that did stand in the election. It won 0.1%; the other got 2%.

Mike.

gurramok

Just one question though.
If the Sunnis enter govt with no mandate (from boycott, terror etc), wouldn't that dilute the idea of a democracy ?
We all know that a few million sunnis did not vote and should be represented somehow but doesn't the idea of a democracy mean that a govt is elected from a mandate ?

gandalf

dahamsta wrote:

Precisely why I rarely get past paragraph one in your posts Sand. After a pathetic start like that, the rest is guaranteed to be garbage. You seem to be a relatively intelligent person, why do you have to stoop to pathetic little outbursts like that? It's just childish.

adam

adam if you have nothing useful to say please don't bother posting. Personally I think an outburst like that is childish. Just turn on your bullsh!t filter and read the rest of his post and comment on that. Much as I hate to admit it, Sand sometimes comes out with some good points (eventhough they are mostly wrong imho).

mike65

gurramok wrote:

Just one question though.
If the Sunnis enter govt with no mandate (from boycott, terror etc), wouldn't that dilute the idea of a democracy ?
We all know that a few million sunnis did not vote and should be represented somehow but doesn't the idea of a democracy mean that a govt is elected from a mandate ?

Yeah that I have to say that was the second thought that crossed my mind (after oh good that makes sense) when I heard the Shias were talking about inviting the Sunnis in anyway. It still makes sense, get the Sunni parties in and more Sunni ppl will see merit in the new order (cough) and be less likely to support the terrorists.

Its going to be a while before constitutional democracy in Iraq is more than "slightly constitutially democratic" to borrow a phase.

Mike.

gandalf

Sand I am actually happy that the Iraqi's have had a chance to vote and hope THEY are allowed to govern without hindrance. However I am very interested in the situation if lets say a Islamic government aligned with Tehran emerges after doing a deal to allow the Kurds some form of independence for their support. Would the Americans and the Turks stand by and allow this?

I do hope that the Iraqi's now get a chance to rebuild their country and they can get the occupying forces out as soon as their own forces can take control of their country but I have my doubts if it will be a smooth ride for them especially with the rhertoric that has come from Washington in the last few months.

Sand

If the Sunnis enter govt with no mandate (from boycott, terror etc), wouldn't that dilute the idea of a democracy ?

As I understand it the major task for this government will be to create and sell the constitution. It will hopefully be based largely on the interim constitution the interim government agreed. Clearly when the task is to create a basic contract between the state and its citizens the Sunnis will need to be represented. The other factions seem to recognise this and have invited Sunni participation.

Ideally, and as the coalition originally planned, there would have been no elections until an agreed constitution was in place and the institutions of state were sufficiently well established. Unfortunately , Sistani did not agree and the man has enough power that what he wants, he effectively gets. In Ireland case we had British institutions and laws to use as a starting point, in Iraq - well Saddams not a shining example of democracy and the unbelievably common majority rules sentiments regarding democracy can often intefere with establishing the rights of citizens.

AFAIK there will be a second election in late 2005/early 2006 once the new constitution is ratified. Hopefully by that stage the Sunnis will be willing and able to participate fully in the democratic process. If they are, and it goes successfully, I think that will spell the beginning of the end for the insurgency, especially as the training of Iraqi security forces will allow the coalition to begin troop withdrawals.

Much as I hate to admit it, Sand sometimes comes out with some good points

So whens that support group having its first meeting?

gandalf

Sand wrote:

So whens that support group having its first meeting?

First meeting is Friday at Boardstock

Sand

Forgive the double post - Gandalf posted after I started to reply...

However I am very interested in the situation if lets say a Islamic government aligned with Tehran emerges after doing a deal to allow the Kurds some form of independence for their support. Would the Americans and the Turks stand by and allow this?

Yeah, I have to admit that I was worried that the Coalition would have liberated Iraq only to deliver it into the hands of the Iranians. Hence my welcome for/relief due to the Shias not polling as well as had originally been predicted.

The Turks will definitly not go for a Kurdistan. Its mere existence would embolden turkish Kurds to unite with it and thus destabilise their country. The Coalition wouldnt really have a choice. They couldnt dictate the terms of the election to Sistani, and theres no indication theyve suddenly gained more influence in the meantime. If they decided to contest a hypothetical Iranian backed Shia revolt it would lead to open war with their militias, and a wider civil war overall between Shia and Sunni.

Thankfully, this hasnt come to pass, and with Sunni involvement in the next round it is less likely to arise. The thing to remember is that Sistani has been totally against anything that would lead to civil war, despite direct and deliberate provocation on the part of Al Zarqawis terrorists. Al Sadr was reined in by Sistani and he has asked Shias not to retaliate against the Sunnis and has been obeyed.

The Kurds on the other hand know that they face instant war with Turkey if they declare independance, but if they go for a federal Iraq, and maybe go for independance by stages, if at all, then they stand a much better chance of achieving their aims. They certainly have enough influence in Iraq and with the Americans to achieve their aims without the need for hasty declarations.

I do hope that the Iraqi's now get a chance to rebuild their country and they can get the occupying forces out as soon as their own forces can take control of their country but I have my doubts if it will be a smooth ride for them especially with the rhertoric that has come from Washington in the last few months.

So do I. I dont believe hasty withdrawals are the answer - to be honest I beleive those who advocate them are either moronic or simply so determined to ensure Iraq turns out a mess that theyll advocate somthing that moronic. Iraq has to remain an American foreign policy priority for the next decade at least, even when troops are gone, as most fledgling democracies fail in their first few years. That said I wouldnt be all dismissive of the US efforts. They messed up in the immediate post war aftermath, but they have stopped digging when they realised they were in a hole and deserve some credit for bringing about an outcome to the elections that no one gave any credence to last year, and all this whilst international phariahs and everyones whipping boy. 10 years from now Iraq could be a functioning democracy. It could be a mess as well, so lets keep our fingers crossed.

dathi1

As everyone knows the Iraqi elections defied the portents of doom,

A Shia super state and a suicide bomb a day....not bad for 1 billion dollars a week..... well at least Uncle sam is paying for it. I love the taste of freedom.

OfflerCrocGod

dathi1 wrote:

A Shia super state and a suicide bomb a day....not bad for 1 billion dollars a week..... well at least Uncle sam is paying for it. I love the taste of freedom.

There are many people in Iraq who may never support such a thing....I wouldn't call the amalgamation of the Shia in Iran/Iraq a "superstate".

dahamsta

gandalf wrote:

adam if you have nothing useful to say please don't bother posting. Personally I think an outburst like that is childish. Just turn on your bullsh!t filter and read the rest of his post and comment on that. Much as I hate to admit it, Sand sometimes comes out with some good points (eventhough they are mostly wrong imho).

I've added him to my Ignore List, if it's all the same to you. I still find it incredible that ignorant labelling like that is allowed to continue around here. The rules that you yourself helped to develop and are supposed to implement state clearly that people are to provide evidence for their assertions, how do you justify a ridiculous assertion like that being able to slide? Answer: You can't, and you take your inability to deal with people like Sand out on those that try to take them up on it.

(No need to reply, I'll almost certainly have heard it before.)

adam

AmenToThat

1.)The results showed that just over 58% of those registered to vote did so.
However there are between 2-3 million of an adult age who couldnt be arsed or for various reasons or were unable to register and Id love to know what impact this would have on the voting statistics if they were added?
In Anbar province(Sunni triangle which includes cities like Ramadi and Fallujah) the vote was...........................2%,
Yep thats right two whole percent of those who were even REGISTERED to vote.
To me this will only in the eyes of the Sunni legitimize the resistance not weaken it.

2.)Of the millions of Shia that voted many are of a highly religious/Iranian leaning, say this new constitution doesnt meet their needs do you think they (Sadr and the Iranaian leaning factions) will stay within the democratic process forever?
Sure Sistani will be able to keep them on board for a while as he proved in dealing with the Sadr/Najaf crisis last year but when after a year or two of self rule the radicals within the Shai community realise that most of the oil reserves have been sold cheaply to foreign companies and that there isnt full employment and the electricity still isnt on, will he still be able to keep them on board?

I think this election throws up more questions than answers and judging by our own peace process Id say theres going to be more than a few twists n turns yet.

SkepticOne

A tradition of democracy needs to be established and this will take time. The first elections in any country will always be difficult with anti-democratic forces disrupting them. It may take a couple of generations for this tradition to be fully established but the Iraqis have to start somewhere. The move by the Sunni group is welcome but I agree with AmenToThat that there will be twists and turns to come.

sovtek

SkepticOne wrote:

The first elections in any country will always be difficult with anti-democratic forces disrupting them.

You mean like an occupation force?

SkepticOne

sovtek wrote:

You mean like an occupation force?

Potentially, yes, although they were instrumental in bringing about the elections in the first place. I was thinking more about the violence and intimidation in the Sunni areas by insurgents and fanatics. The occupation forces could be criticised for not coming down hard enough on these groups in the early stages of the occupation.

sovtek

SkepticOne wrote:

Potentially, yes, although they were instrumental in bringing about the elections in the first place.

No they weren't. Sistani had to basically threaten them before Bush agreed to have the election. It was only after they realized how much pull Sistani had that they agreed to elections.

sovtek

SkepticOne wrote:

The occupation forces could be criticised for not coming down hard enough on these groups in the early stages of the occupation.

Yes flattening Falluja and killing God knows how many civilians worked well didn't it?

SkepticOne

sovtek wrote:

No they weren't. Sistani had to basically threaten them before Bush agreed to have the election. It was only after they realized how much pull Sistani had that they agreed to elections.

So the occupation forces listened to leaders in Iraq and were instrumental in bringing about the elections. But I seem to remember that they were planning to hold elections anyway.

SkepticOne

sovtek wrote:

Yes flattening Falluja and killing God knows how many civilians worked well didn't it?

No, they should have dealt with these groups early on harder before they got organised. The US made many mistakes in the early stages of the occupation. They allowed a state of lawlessness to develop that persists today. But that is history. Now they need to support the newly elected president in ensuring that mob rule doesn't prevail in that country.

sovtek

SkepticOne wrote:

So the occupation forces listened to leaders in Iraq and were instrumental in bringing about the elections. But I seem to remember that they were planning to hold elections anyway.

Yes they were planning to have elections with much more control but Sistani didn't agree to it and had to threaten basically to fight them if they didn't have them now and under a different system.
If you call that "instrumental" then hey....knock yourself out.

sovtek

SkepticOne wrote:

No, they should have dealt with these groups early on harder before they got organised.

That's worked every where it's been tried now hasn't it.
These groups obviously have a large degree of support from the average Iraq or at least tacit approval of what they are doing.
That being the case "routing them out" isn't an option unless they want to kill alot of innocent people and just basically piss everyone off...which is pretty much what they've done so far.

The US made many mistakes in the early stages of the occupation. They allowed a state of lawlessness to develop that persists today. But that is history.

So is it history or does it still persist?

SkepticOne

sovtek wrote:

Yes they were planning to have elections with much more control but Sistani didn't agree to it and had to threaten basically to fight them if they didn't have them now and under a different system.

So, elections are planned by the occupation forces. These elections are modified under pressure from a popular leader. Elections are then held by the occupation forces. No elections of any form would have been held without the occupation forces. Yes, I would say that that the occupation forces were instrumental in bringing about the elections.

SkepticOne

sovtek wrote:

So is it history or does it still persist?

The mistakes they made are history. It would have been better now if the state of lawlessness was not allowed to develop in the first place but they can't go back in time and correct them. The legacy of these mistakes persist and will for some time.

sovtek

SkepticOne wrote:

The mistakes they made are history. The legacy of these mistakes persist and will for some time.

...even though they keep on making them?

SkepticOne

sovtek wrote:

...even though they keep on making them?

Yes, the specific mistakes I mentioned are now history but the legacy of them still needs to be dealt with.

AmenToThat

I really think people are still missing the point that only two percent of the people of Anbar province turned up to vote.
Of that two percent the Shia list got the largest slice with 5000 voters and Allawi's list (again Shia but secular) got second with 4000. ie practically no Sunni's voted at all.
There have been Sunni politicians and indeed some Sunni tribal leaders working with the government since day one, this is not a new thing as some here are trying to portray it as
People seem to have forgotten that the President of Iraq Gazi Al Yawr was a Sunni tribal leader.
Did this make a blind bit of difference on the insurgency? no, and I dont think it will now, as I say I think the voting patterns will only reinforce the insurgents and outside extremists.
Iv posted a link to the graphic from the Times of the breakdown in provinces for the vote.
It makes interesting reading as in the neighbouring region to Anbar, Salahuddin wich contains the towns of Tikrit, Boquba and Sammara and is a Sunni insurgency hotbed but ethnically more mixed 29% turned out to vote but again the voting shows that those that voted were for the Shia (Sistani list) and the Kurdish list, the Sunni who live there just arent buying into this new Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1483623,00.html


Third one down.....How Iraq voted

dahamsta

SkepticOne wrote:

Yes, the specific mistakes I mentioned are now history but the legacy of them still needs to be dealt with.

Unfortunately this comes up rather a lot. The American electoral system, for example.

adam

SkepticOne

sovtek wrote:

These groups obviously have a large degree of support from the average Iraq or at least tacit approval of what they are doing.

Why do you think that? Why do they have to resort to violence and intimidation against the Iraqi people if they have the support of them?

That being the case "routing them out" isn't an option unless they want to kill alot of innocent people and just basically piss everyone off...which is pretty much what they've done so far.

Yet this "routing them out" as you put it has to be done. One of the mistakes of the US was not doing this with sufficient force early on.

Redleslie2

SkepticOne wrote:

Why do you think that? Why do they have to resort to violence and intimidation against the Iraqi people if they have the support of them?Yet this "routing them out" as you put it has to be done. One of the mistakes of the US was not doing this with sufficient force early on.

They should have steamed in and whacked about 2 million? Camps and heavy logistics and suchlike required for that sort of thing.