Iraqi Provincial Elections

By Cernig

I really hope the Iraqi provincial elections today NEXT WEEK (I misread the link) go well - free, fair and non-violent. Both the vote itself and the way it is conducted will be important indicators of the way that nation is going, whether towards reconcilliation or towards entrenched factional splits and thus eventual outbreaks of violence again. There's already a huge fly in the ointment - elections in Kurdish Iraq won't happen today because of power-sharing turf fights. That such massive security measures are required just so that "the people" can exercise their democratic voice isn't a great sign either.

A credible election without significant violence would show that the security improvements of the past 18 months are taking hold. The outcome will also show which parties stand the best chance of success in parliamentary elections expected by the end of the year.

However, a deeply flawed election, marred by violence and allegations of widespread fraud, would cast doubt over Iraq's future and could influence President Barack Obama's decision on how fast to remove the 142,000 American troops.

Obama pledged during the presidential campaign to end America's role in the unpopular war and has ordered his national security team to prepare plans for a responsible withdrawal. U.S. officials warn that a hasty pullout could threaten Iraq's fragile security.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, says the Pentagon is closely watching the elections because their outcome "will, I think, be a big indicator for 2009, which is a big year."

U.S. and Iraqi officials have warned extremists may try to disrupt Saturday's vote and are planning heightened security, including banning vehicles on election day and closing airports and land borders. But officials expect a strong turnout — possibly more than 70 percent of the 15 million eligible voters.

We're not going to know who the "winners" are for months, as deals and coalitions come and go. A lot of those fractures in Iraqi society are going to be stressed. By the end of it all, we'll know far more about how well "we broke it, we should fix it" is going.

Iraqi elections: Elites to fight for power and oil. (RealNews.Net Dec 15)

Update: The WaPo has a Sunday article saying that the tribal power structure stands the most likely to gain from these elections. Plus ca change. Definitely worth a read.

Comments

[anderson]

a deeply flawed election ... could influence President Barack Obama's decision on how fast to remove the 142,000 American troops.

Yet another potential pretext.

[Klaus]

It's not before next Saturday...

[Craig]

I thought the elections were on Jan. 31st ??

According to Arabic news sites it is.
-------
Just checked your link to the news on Yahoo..
it IS Jan. 31st 2009.

[Steve Hynd]

Thanks folks, fixed.

Regards, C

[Mr. Forward]

You do realize, don't you that free elections in Iraq prove you have been wrong all along about Iraq? There was nothing in your past writing that explains or understands how Democracy came to Iraq.

[Steve Hynd]

On the contrary, I've consistently written that Iraqi sovereignty must be respected and it's their nation to fix or foul up as they see fit. I've never written, as many rightwingers have, that Iraqis were incapable of democracy. I've said instead that the cards were stacked against true democracy so far. If these are indeed free elections they'll be the first such in Iraq (i.e. without either US or Iraqi hands on the scales) but I'll wait and see if they are or not.

If your talking about the invasion bringing democracy (it doesn't need capitalization) then until now I'd contend that elections have been no less rigged than under Sadddam and those without "insider" power just as disenfranchised. Paul Bremer didn't even want elections - he intended simply appointing a strongman until Sistani threatened general insurrection if elections weren't held. So no, the invasion didn't bring any democracy - whatever democracy Iraq has is purely to Iraq's credit and could well have occured anyway.

Regards, C

[anderson]

Dear Mr. Forward,

You do realize that the very first thing local Iraqi populations -- communities -- were doing in the summer of 2003 was organizing local elections and it was L. Paul Bremer who issued an edict ordering such elections shut down. Certainly, the removal of Hussein spurred people to move democratically. But it was US officialdom that stalled and postponed things as long as possible.

The facetious complaint the Iraqis just can't handle democracy has always irked, especially in light of the fact that they were ready, willing and able to hold elections in the immediate aftermath of the election and before Iraq sunk into the quagmire it became. Of course, the fear was that they would elect a bunch of people the US simply didn't want elected. Democracy for the White House is a one way street. Just look at Gaza.

[anderson]

elections in the immediate aftermath of the election

That should read, "elections in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.