Elections in Iraq Posted by: Jon Henke
on Monday, December 12, 2005
Democracy Arsenal sums up the stakes going into the Iraqi elections...
We all know this week's elections for a permanent Iraqi parliament are important, but what tea leaves are worth focusing on to determine whether this will be a watershed for democracy, another halting and ambivalent step in Iraq's tortured transition, or the beginning of the end of Iraq as a unitary state.
They also provide 10 things to watch. As has often been said, democracy is a process, not an election. (and it's much more than simply elections, too) The questions will not be entirely answered by Thursday's elections, but we'll be able to see some trends. In the meantime, here are a few good signs...
Saddam Hussein loyalists who violently opposed January elections have made an about-face as Thursday's polls near, urging fellow Sunni Arabs to vote and warning al Qaeda militants not to attack.
In a move unthinkable in the bloody run-up to the last election, guerrillas in the western insurgent heartland of Anbar province say they are even prepared to protect voting stations from fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
Nobody expects the Sunnis to give up their own ambitions. But the difference between pursuing their goals with violence and pursuing their goals within the political process is the difference between civil war and democracy.
Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high. But views of the country's situation overall are far less positive, and there are vast differences in views among Iraqi groups — a study in contrasts between increasingly disaffected Sunni areas and vastly more positive Shiite and Kurdish provinces.
Additional results of the poll:
"seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead."
"more than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in a poll in June 2004. And 61 percent say local security is good — up from 49 percent in the first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004."
"57 percent identify [security] as the country's top priority"
"Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country."
"Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent — including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike — want Iraq to remain a unified country."
"Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a "single strong leader.")"
"just 35 percent [of those in Sunni dominated areas] are optimistic about the country's future"
"Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004."
"Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon."
"26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent)."
These are mixed results. Clearly, there's a lot of antipathy towards the US and what seems like positive attitudes towards conditions, democracy, etc really breaks down when you look at critical groups. (i.e., mainly sunnis). But the problems are resolvable, especially if the elections increase Sunni representation. Participation is key, and that appears to be happening.
The vote this week while Iraq is still under occupation by foreign fighters from the "coalition" will mean absolutely NOTHING to the American people. Well, the war supporters will somehow feel they’re a part of it by virtue of their warmongering but that still doesn’t give the vote any tangible meaning to most Americans who think the whole war is a mistake.
The Iraq war has not benefited the American people one iota and as far as the American people are concerned, this week’s vote is no more significant than this week’s episode of "The E-Ring."
These are mixed results. Clearly, there’s a lot of antipathy towards the US and what seems like positive attitudes towards conditions, democracy, etc really breaks down when you look at critical groups. (i.e., mainly sunnis). But the problems are resolvable, especially if the elections increase Sunni representation. Participation is key, and that appears to be happening.
This assertion demonstrates a critical misunderstanding of what the election means. From the SF Chronicle:
President Bush has framed the debate over Iraq as a series of stark choices—tyranny or freedom, terrorism or democracy, stay the course or cut and run—and he has insisted U.S. troops will not leave until Iraq has a secure, flourishing democracy and a market economy.
But with the insurgency raging, two respected U.S. Army experts on the Middle East argue that the president should dramatically scale back those goals to avoid what they say are the growing prospects of a catastrophic civil war. Such a war, they say, would create a major security crisis not just for Iraq and the Middle East, but also for the United States—and so a fundamental shift in strategy is called for.
The two propose that the United States be willing to place stability above democracy, at least in the near term, and to swallow the "bitter pill" of supporting an authoritarian regime in Iraq backed by sectarian militias if that is the best means of suppressing the insurgency and bringing U.S. troops home.
Such a policy shift would, in effect, achieve success by lowering expectations, not out of choice but out of necessity, they say.
"Avoiding the worst is really something we need to focus on now, not seeking the best possible outcome," W. Andrew Terrill, one of the authors of the report, said in an interview. "It would be too horrendous not just for Iraq, but for us if things fall apart. I don’t want to sound alarmist, but these are our vital interests."
Terrill and his co-author, Conrad C. Crane, are Middle East specialists at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., a highly respected graduate school for the military’s elite. They both write for and get information from some of the Army’s top leaders, including commanders in Iraq.
Their report, first published in October, has attracted attention recently because its downbeat conclusions, coming from a U.S. Army institution, differ sharply from the more optimistic assessments by the Bush administration, and also offer a sharply different exit strategy.
This is not the first time the two have attracted interest with a dissenting perspective on Iraq. Lending them credibility in policy circles is the fact that a controversial report they wrote weeks before the war began proved especially prescient. In the bluntly worded analysis, published in February 2003, they warned of escalating violence if the United States did not make "an overwhelming effort to prepare for occupation," no matter how swiftly the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein.
"The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years," they wrote in 2003, "a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America’s own making." Having correctly predicted the insurgency, the two now urge a different exit policy. In the interview, Terrill insisted he is completely nonpartisan and said he strongly supports Bush’s refusal to announce a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, which in his view could create a dangerous vacuum.
****
Although Iraq is set to pass another milestone in its democratic development on Thursday with elections for a new parliament and permanent government, Terrill said he holds out little hope that the ballot box is winning out over bullets. The minority Sunnis are so frustrated at their loss of power to the majority Shiites, he contends, that a day at the polls will not result in the abandonment of violence.
"What many people don’t understand is that voting is not a renunciation of violence," said Terrill. "It is just one way for the Sunnis to try and gain some power, but not the only way. The Sunnis will use all means to oppose the Shiites, and if that means violence they will use violence. " According to Terrill, one of the most worrisome signs has been reports from the field that, despite the enormous efforts to train a capable Iraqi army, the motivation and allegiance of many of those forces remain highly uncertain.
"What has struck me is that there are still those intangibles," said Terrill. "We don’t know enough about their soldiers, even now."
If there is a more realistic model for Iraq, they say, it may be a country like Yemen.
That Middle Eastern country, bordering Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Sea, is rated "poor" by the U.S. State Department in its respect for human rights, and its record in fighting terrorists is spotty. Militias are active and democratic expression is limited. But at least Yemen is stable, Terrill said; it is generally cooperative with Washington, it has nascent democratic institutions, and over time it could be pushed toward greater political openness.
Exactly. Voting is simply another way of gaining power. To suggest that it evidences any kind of mitigation or renunciation of violence is simply to misunderstand the nature of Iraqi society.
Really MK, just another way of getting power? So if Dubya wants to run the country from ’08 to ’12 he can just use violence and that would be just the same as running for re-election?
No voting is NOT simply another way of getting power. Voting is aobout power flowing from something OTHER than a gun barrel! Voting, presupposes an acceptance of the outcome, unlike violence. Plus, as the Sunni represent only about 15% of the Iraqi population, they are not getting power, they are struggling to not lose MORE power.
If they represented 15% of the populace under Saddam they probably got 50-plus % of the "goodies." That’s over and gone, becuase of VOTING, MK... Voting isn’t just another way of getting power, see? Voting distributes power, roughly, in proportion to one’s voting strength. The Shi’i represent about 60% of the voters in Iraq and have a disproportionate say in the running of the nation, now.
Under the old system of violence and suppression they had very little say in the operation of the government. MK, to be dismissive, at least TRY to advance an argument that isn’t prima facie philosophically flawed.
Fianlly I will note, many on Left and Right seem fans of "stability." Don’t shake things up. Well Brent Scowcroft, MK, and Berezhinski Auschwitz was STABLE, but does that mean we shouldn’t have disturbed the system?
No - as evidenced by two experts who correctly predicted the insurgency. And who can hardly be characterized as working for some kind of anti-Bush outfit.
When making an assertion, it is best to back up that assertion with some kind of authoritative opinion based on fact or on the fact itself. That way, when someone who disagrees with the assertion comes along, they can’t simply say "You’re wrong." They either have to show why the fact is not true, or why the authority shouldn’t be listened to. It is simply not enough for them to try to discredit the assertion simply because they do not agree with the point of view of the person making the assertion.
But that requires thought and work and all that stuff that most Bush backers - like Bush himself - are not fond of.
"The minority Sunnis are so frustrated at their loss of power to the majority Shiites, he contends, that a day at the polls will not result in the abandonment of violence."
There is plenty of talk about avoiding a civil war as if that is the worst possible outcome but perhaps a civil war will be necessary. If one group is intent on using violence to achieve its means then I suspect violence in return, leading to their ultimate defeat, may be the only way to settle the dust for good, assuming one side is defeated completely.
No voting is NOT simply another way of getting power. Voting is aobout power flowing from something OTHER than a gun barrel!
Right - power from something other than a gun. What’s strange about your response is that - especially in this sentence - you basically agree with me.
More basically, voting and violence often go hand in hand - indeed, efforts to democratize often to lead to more - not less - ethnic tension. They tend to polarize - instead of unite. From a good article on the subject from today’s LA Times:
The ambivalence among Shiite moderates contrasts with the intransigence that characterizes much of Iraq’s contemporary political culture.
Nearly all of Iraq’s Kurds are expected to vote for the large ethnic slate led by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani.
Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority largely boycotted the January polls, the country’s first election in the post-Saddam Hussein era. This time, they appear ready to vote for either of two Sunni tickets or for Allawi, a former member of Hussein’s Baath Party who has included prominent nationalist Sunnis in his coalition list.
Shiites living in agricultural hamlets throughout the country’s river deltas are almost certain to cast their votes for 555, the ballot number for the Shiite-led United Iraqi Alliance, which has the tacit backing of the sect’s clerical hierarchy.
That leaves the country’s sizable Shiite middle class as the only major demographic up for grabs in the election. They’re often members of the country’s vast civil service or other professionals, and live in large cities such as Baghdad, Basra and Nasiriya and southern provinces such as Muthanna and Maysan.
Though largely secular and ideologically close to Allawi, their "reflex is to vote useful," said a political insider with ties to both the Allawi and Alliance camps who did not want to be identified. These voters worry that a ballot for the Allawi coalition could be a wasted one if much of the rest of the country is voting along sectarian lines.
"Sunnis are voting for Sunnis and Kurds for Kurds," said Khafaji, who said he had been leaning toward the Iraqi National List but now favored the Alliance. "The decision inside me, too, is shifting toward my sect."
In an attempt to appear more pious, Allawi recently visited the shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf, where he was pelted with shoes as he left.
They would support Allawi - the "moderate" secular Shiite - only in the election they won’t. Of course, the election of an extremist Shiite government - for the next four years - can’t really make the Sunnis happy. But then again, I can’t imagine in a million years that Bush ever thought these kind of issues through before he invaded.
The author has a point, in that it is possible to put down your rifle, go vote, and then pick it up to go conduct a raid. However, in earlier elections the Sunnis didn’t vote. This time they are. Thus, it is up to you and your hand-picked expert opinions to explain why there is a change. McQ provides an excellent possibility. You need to go watch the Monty Python argument skit again, dude: this is supposed to be the exchange of ideas and opinions backed up by fact and/or evidence, not just the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person says. Which ’automatic gainsaying’ is pretty much the bulk of your postings here, from what I’ve seen.
“It is simply not enough for them to try to discredit the assertion simply because they do not agree with the point of view of the person making the assertion.”
MK, you would drag in a dead, yellow dog if it had a note tied to its tail with something negative about Bush written on it. Given the quality of your past offerings here, the very fact that you offer it is a huge negative against its veracity right there.
MK is correct to point out that there are serious ethnic and sectarian problems in Iraq—problems that a single election will not solve. Nobody is claiming that a single election will solve the problems, though; merely that the solution to the problems lies in providing alternatives to violence. Many will choose to reject those alternatives, and they must be dealt with by—hopefully—those who choose to buy in to the political process.
At this point, however, nobody can claim to know the outcome. MK isn’t laying out a reason we can’t succeed. He’s just suggesting that it’s possible that we won’t. Well, yeah, it is possible. And you know what makes it more likely? Deciding that it’s inevitable.
Not to mention the distinct possibility that after we reach a consensus here [yes, I know] something entirely different could come about in Iraq. MK has given up – or should I say never started. Had we listened to MK we would all be knashing our teeth over Saddam now and anxiously scanning every over-dressed chubby on the subway wondering if they have plans for earning a fast $25,000 for their family in Iraq. What a sad future MK would give us; victims; never allowed to take arms to defend our way of life. Oh, and the only reason Afghanistan is “OK” is because we are in Iraq. If we had not gone into Iraq we would be listening to the same tired litany about Afghanistan. MK’s logic about the factions in Iraq could easily be applied to the factions in America. You could use it in the same way to show that, due to the deep divisions, we can never run a democracy. Well, the bumblebee flies, MK. Rather than passing along the problems in the Middle East to another generation, we finally have an administration with the guts to do something about them. They knew that “folks” [boy, did I want to use another term there!] like MK would be keening and caterwauling every step of the way. They went ahead anyway and I salute them for it. I have a different kind of salute for MK and her ilk.
