An Iraqi democracy question

[Trident-za]

I'm not trying to start any flame war here, so please don't respond with rubbish.

I've read on a few websites that one of the issues the US is dealing with in Iraq is the question of elections in 2004. The US is apparently against the idea... whats the rationale behind this? Elections are a vital part of any democracy, surely? Why refuse the "right" to vote in your leaders?

From my point of view, one of the criteria for succesful democracy is an "educated, informed" electorate. I can understand if the US believes this isn't possible in Iraq right now, but I'm not sure if this is the reasoning. I'm genuinely curious about the rationale here....

By the way, we in South Africa still don't have an educated, informed electorate, 10 years after the first "official" election. The rest of the world thought that our first elections were wonderful, what's different in the Iraq situation?

[StubbyChubs]

From what I understand, the US wants a constitution drafted (one with a system of checks and balances clearly delineated and one that protects the rights of the minority and women) before holding elections. Otherwise, if elections are held now the Iraqi's may end up electing in a one time vote dictator, or the government may descend into a tyranny of the majority. The majority of course being the Shia.

[James]

A Shiite Cleric has (I believe) called for a nationwide, popular election. THe U.S. is more interested in setting up a caucus system where elected representatives of the population elect the new national leader.

[StarvingStudent47]

The problem with launching directly into elections is if the populace is not use to them, they might just "vote away" their democracy. This nearly happened in Russia's first elections after the USSR fell. Radical ultranationalists like Vladimir Zhirinovsky nearly won on several occassions.

Ideally, democracy should be "eased into."

The other problem is a risk of civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites. People need time to get used to the idea that elections cannot be contested with military force. Sunnis had control under Saddam, but Shi'ites are the majority. So if we just go to direct democracy, Shi'ites might "seek retribution" against the Sunni minority and elect some violent Shi'ite radicals. The only solution I see is a bicameral legislature, where one house has equal representation for each religion, and the other house has representation based on population (kind of like how the US Senate has 2 senators for each state, regardless of size, whereas the House of Representatives is based off of population).

Anyway, the real reason we don't want to launch into immediate, uncontrolled elections is the fear that some sort of Khomeini-esque radical will be elected.

[One?]

Its a simple answer. The US wants a puppet government. They do not want another saddam or Iran down there, so they are trying to "select" the represantitives, thats why one of the most leadin Shia clerics called for an uprising, and to resist US soldeirs (with force) if they do not allow the people to elect these representitives.

[StarvingStudent47]

EDIT--in retrospect, I shouldn't start a flamewar here. Post deleted.

[Jack Mehoff]

Terrorists blow up innocent Iraqis in the name of freedom but instead they bomb the people they are suppose to liberate from the Americans infidel :lol:

[StarvingStudent47]

Terrorists blow up innocent Iraqis in the name of freedom but instead they bomb the people they are suppose to liberate from the Americans infidel :lol:

Agreed. I always thought it was dumb how people would look at a Pakistani jihadist blowing up Iraqi policemen and say "well, that's just a freedom fighter resisting/uprising against the US occupation." It doesn't make sense. As far as I can tell, the majority of casualties from terrorist bombings in Iraq are Iraqi, not American.

[Trident-za]

Thanks for all the replies, and for the fact that it hasn't turned into a flame-war :)

Some interesting comments made by some.

[Nizark]

Yeah, its just so damn difficult to have a group of "smart guys" -the US founders- that do not seem to have their own person agenda goin on. For a while the pentagon thought, and still thinks that Chalabi could be that guy, but the sucka is a crook who has charges filed against him in a Jordanian court for fraud I believe it is. This governing council isn't a bad start, since it does have somewhat of a balance between the religions in Iraq, Sunni/shiite/Kurds, but the Shiites, namely Sistani, know that the only way to seize power in Iraq is to vote immiediately while the Shiites still have momentum going. Saudi arabia probably wont let that happen since SA is primarily Sunni, and neither will Kuwait..not to mention the Iraqi Sunni's. The caucaus (sp?) system is a good start, also, it would give the coalition and the rest of the world an idea of how the Iraqis will vote, as well as see the flaws in the system, and where and who the real power bases are. While I see the UN as useful as a hangnail, they have some luck in elections, so we should get the UN involved in that, while guarenteeing their safety during the trial period. A give and take deal, where the overall US blueprint isn't too ****ed with so we don't look stupid and if it works, we can say we were right about it, and the UN saves face by showing its worth to the Iraqi's and the world.

[martinexsquaddie]

theres a distinct lack of law and order
no voter registration
and a lot of the political parties are not really in favour of democracy just power for themselves. One Shia party in Basra has over a hundred tanks parked up in Iran about half an Hour away :(
So going to need some real smarts to sort this situation out.
anyone for a jurrasic park style solution clone tom paine and bill franklin ? :lol:

[One?]

theres a distinct lack of law and order
no voter registration
and a lot of the political parties are not really in favour of democracy just power for themselves. One Shia party in Basra has over a hundred tanks parked up in Iran about half an Hour away :(
So going to need some real smarts to sort this situation out.
anyone for a jurrasic park style solution clone tom paine and bill franklin ? :lol:

Yet the same party is part of the Iraqi council, and the US seems happy with them. ;)

[Seiyuuki]

Yeah, its just so damn difficult to have a group of "smart guys" -the US founders- that do not seem to have their own person agenda goin on.

I just got the first issue of my subscription to "Military History" magazine, there is an interesting story in here that you can probably draw correlation to.

The article is about Ahmad Shah Massoud, the "Lion of the Panjshir," I am mentioning only a small part of the article.



The 'Lion of the Panjshir' inspired dogged Afghan resistance to the Soviets-and the Taliban
by Matthew R. Lamothe

[...] By the summer of 2001, a succession of Taliban offensives had driven Massoud into the northeast corner of Afghanistan. In September, a camera crew claiming to represent Arab News International requested an interview with Massoud at his headquarters near the front. He consented on September 9. As the interview began, explosives hidden in the camera detonated, mortally wounding Massoud. Nothing remained of the cameraman but one leg. Massoud died in the back of a Toyota Land Cruiser 15 minutes later, as his aides tried to evacuate him to Tajikistan. Two days after his death, three hijacked airliners crashed into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.

By December 2001, European police had managed to link Massoud’s assassins to Al Qaeda. It is considered likely that Mullah Omar and Bin Laden anticipated an alliance between Massoud and the United States following the September 11 terrorist attacks and decided to kill him. Numerous observers say that Bin Laden would not have dared to provoke the United states had Massoud still been alive to make use of the kind of increased U.S. military aid that would have been offered him. On October 7, the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom, providing direct military support to the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban and reentered Kabul, placing an interim government in power and plastering the capital with posters bearing Massoud’s picture.

As Afghanistan struggled toward democracy, former Massoud aide and current Afghan foreign minister Dr. Abdullah Abdullah lamented his loss in an interview with Current History Journal: “In a period where there is considerable opportunity and hope, his energy, his charisma, and his leadership would have a great impact.” Massoud’s funeral was attended not only by Tadjiks but also Hazaras, Uzbeks and other Afghan constituencies. The Lion of the Panjshir now lies at rest in beloved native valley.

I don't know much about the man, but from the article I read, he seem to be a good man. Even in death, he was still capable of uniting the many constituencies of Afghanistan. If he was still alive, perhaps he could have been the "George Washington" of the Afghans.

The reasoning for a need to have in place a dedicated Constitution first is very sensible. Even history have proven that the concept work, the United States did not have their first presidential election until the ratification of their Constitution by all the colonies. Afghanistan is also another logical example, going through the same process, I think they just finish their Constitution, now they can firmly move ahead toward a national election.

[Argyll]

Massoud was a legend within the Mujihadeen.
Without a doubt if he'd not been assasinated he'd have been their "chosen" leader,however I think Dostum would've had something to say about that!!
Dostum is a loose cannon,he hates everyone!!

[martinexsquaddie]

I think the US are stuck with that shia party
either you have them in the tent or there outside rasing trouble

[Antepilani]

The United States is not and has never been a Democracy, so why would we want to institute absolute majority rule into a country that would elect some Cleric who would institute Islamic Law.

[One?]

The United States is not and has never been a Democracy, so why would we want to institute absolute majority rule into a country that would elect some Cleric who would institute Islamic Law.

none of the clerics said they want an Islamic Law. And if they want an Islamic law its their country. Who are you to tell them how to run their country?

[Argyll]

Aye you got that right Martin

Shi'ite sticks!!!

[One?]

shia's are 80% of the iraqi population, you can't just forget about them.