Iraqi Elections already tainted.

[theloniusfleabag]

After reading so much about the problems surrounding the coming Iraqi 'elections', I thought I would try to see who all was running, and what their chances were. It seems that there are some 230 slated candidates, most of whom cannot travel within the country to campaign, and do not have TV or advertising budgets. Of the few that do have access to large amounts of money, they are almost all hard-line clerics or their representatives.

The only one who seems to have it all wrapped up is Allawi. In USAToday,

Allawi has been using the perquisites of office as though he studied at the feet of an American president. On every state occasion, he uses government-controlled television to deliver nationwide, prime-time speeches.

How fair is this? As the US imposed ruler of the interim gov't, he and only he can use this kind of influence.

The USA should be taking steps to stop this mockery of democracy, yet I somehow think that is not going to happen.

[August1991]

After reading so much about the problems surrounding the coming Iraqi 'elections',

The problems are only in the Sunnite areas of Iraq, near Baghdad. There will be little problem in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north (with the possible exception of Mosul).

I believe Shiites make up about 60% of the Iraqi population.

It seems that there are some 230 slated candidates, most of whom cannot travel within the country to campaign

it depends who and depends where. In Basra, this is not a problem, I believe. There have been several election rallies.

It is hard not to see that some members of the Sunni minority are acting as spoiled children.

The USA should be taking steps to stop this mockery of democracy, yet I somehow think that is not going to happen.

Far from being a mockery, it is precisely democracy that is the source of the problem.

[kimmy]

I guess somewhat predictably this thing looks poised to break down across factional lines; the Sunni minority is already unhappy about the election thing and is going to take their ball and go home.

Al-Zarqawi: voting isn't cool.

Zarqawi, a shadowy Jordanian militant who tops America's wanted list in Iraq, berated the country's Shi'ite majority for embracing the coming election and urged Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s once-dominant Sunni minority to wage a holy fight against it.

"We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it," a speaker identified as Zarqawi said in an audio tape on the Internet.

"Those who vote ... are infidels. And with God as my witness, I have informed them (of our intentions)," he said.

"Candidates in elections are seeking to become demi-gods while those who vote for them are infidels," the recording said. "And with God as my witness, I have informed them (of our intentions)."

Guardian UK: more on Zarqawi

Candidates are idols; people who vote are idol-worshippers; the Quran condemns both to lots and lots of wrath. This is actually somewhat similar to my personal view of candidates as "idols of idiot-worshippers."

It was probably inevitable that one of these jackasses would come up with religious rhetoric to prove that Allah hates elections.

-kimmy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Far from being a mockery, it is precisely democracy that is the source of the problem.

I agree. I realize that you feel democracy is imperfect, and have often sided against it. I have also seen you disagree with Hugo's anarchy (which he presents rather well) so I cannot seem to figure out what you feel would be a better solution. Benevolent dictatorships? Dynastic Monarchies? Or having everyone submit a 'constitutional law' on a slip of paper, and having 10 new laws 'drawn like a lottery' every month (or year)?

[August1991]

I realize that you feel democracy is imperfect, and have often sided against it.

True, I feel democracy is imperfect but I have yet to see any other way of choosing a government that does not collapse into tyranny.

I have also seen you disagree with Hugo's anarchy (which he presents rather well) so I cannot seem to figure out what you feel would be a better solution.

Hugo favours no government at all. I think government is a very useful institution.

I have tried to defend the idea of government using the arguments based on pragmatism as well as on free choice. Hugo is an ideologue. Terrible Sweal and I have given up, I think.

Benevolent dictatorships? Dynastic Monarchies?

Heaven's, no!

Or having everyone submit a 'constitutional law' on a slip of paper, and having 10 new laws 'drawn like a lottery' every month (or year)?

We've almost got that now: serial, random, short-term dictatorship.

Far from being a mockery, it is precisely democracy that is the source of the problem.

I meant to say that Saddam's non-democratic regime gave an outsized place to the Sunni minority. One man, one vote (democracy if you will) has upset their position. Clearly, they're not happy with what's going on.

Rather than say democracy is the 'source' of the problem, perhaps I should have stated that democracy has exposed the problem.

The Lebanese Civil War between 1975-92 was somewhat similar. The Christians had to accept their true numerical position.

----

In Canada, we have a weird, dysfunctional balance between English/French, East/West, and so on. Now, imagine a bunch of well-meaning foreigners trodding into the middle of all that.