Iraq Update – Election Day
Dec 15, 2005
THE ROVING EYE
We vote, then we throw you out
By Pepe Escobar
First, a quick look at the environment ahead of Thursday’s elections in Iraq. Political assassinations, party headquarters burned, abductions (all largely unreported by Western corporate media). A former prime minister, Iyad Allawi – widely known in Baghdad as “Saddam without a moustache” – saying on the record that human rights in President George W Bush’s Iraq are worse than they were under Saddam.
Current Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari’s Da’wa Party accusing Allawi of defending the occupiers. Allawi accusing Jaafari’s government of corruption. Former Pentagon asset Ahmad Chalabi’s campaign posters with the inscription, “We liberated Iraq.”
A network of secret torture prisons and charnel houses. Fear and loathing in militia hell. American military operations to “secure peaceful voting”. All traffic circulation prohibited by the occupiers (to prevent car bombings). The borders with both Syria and Jordan, as well as Baghdad’s airport, all closed.
Satanic, free and fair
We all knew what some were going to say. Saddam Hussein – preparing his next coup de theater in court – declared the elections “a farce”. Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers, plus four other jihadi groups, denounced them as “a satanic project”, vowing to perpetuate the jihad, fighting for “an Islamic state ruled by the book [the Koran] and the traditions of Prophet Mohammed”.
Other positions are more nuanced. On Monday, a leaflet was widely distributed in the Azamiyah neighborhood in Baghdad stating that Sunni Arabs might have a chance to reinforce their position through the elections, but “the fighting will continue with the infidels and their followers”.
The Bush administration spin – faithfully reproduced by Western corporate media quoting the usual (“US officials”) suspects – follows the same wishful script: a “large turnout” among the “disaffected Sunni Arab minority” that “could” produce a government “capable of winning the trust of the Sunnis”, “defusing the insurgency” and thus leading the US “and other foreign troops” to start going home by 2006.
The favorite Anglo-American election candidate supposedly capable of pulling it all off is once again Allawi – a truculent secular Shi’ite who was once a Ba’athist (he has kept the good connections) before he became anti-Saddam and a US intelligence asset. The White House may forget it, but Iraqis don’t; Allawi gave the go-ahead for the American leveling of Fallujah and the American bombing of holy Najaf in 2004.
A few days ago he was bombarded with shoes and chased away from the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf. British Prime Minister Tony Blair supports him and considers him “the best hope” for Iraq. Pentagon analysts agree, as one of them told The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh that “he would allow us to keep Special Forces operations inside Iraq … mission accomplished. A coup for Bush.”
But no amount of feel good stories disguise the fact that the American project is doomed to fail because the premise itself is flawed – a semblance of democracy as the offspring of an illegal invasion and foreign occupation. Moreover, this White House-promoted and/or imposed “fast food democracy” has been sectarian-based from the start. It is inexorably leading to the Lebanonization of Iraq, a phenomenon parallel to the Iraqification of the occupation.
Iraqi voters have their own reasons to question whether these elections are free and fair. For starters, most are not interested; what really glues them to TV sets is Saddam on trial (the majority of Iraqis, Shi’ites and Kurds, has already condemned him to death). There’s poor security for the voters; they can only hope they won’t be blown to smithereens when they take the mandatory walk to the polling station to choose between 231 political parties, coalitions and individual candidates.
And there’s little security for the almost 7,000 candidates either. The bulk of the campaigning has been on TV; this means only a few flush parties stood a chance. Live campaigning led in many cases to abduction and even assassination. Moreover, most voters are not exactly sure of what they’re doing. Recent polls have revealed that at least half of the Iraqi population is still not convinced of the merits of Western-style democracy, at least the White House-promoted version.
Half believe that the occupiers should have never set foot in Mesopotamia. Sixty percent think that they turned the country into an even bigger disaster than it was after the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the first Gulf war in 1991 and 12 years of United Nations sanctions. And two thirds of the population wants the occupiers out. Half the people polled by the BBC said Iraq needed a strong leader (a “Saddam without a moustache”?) And only 28% said democracy was a priority.
The full Shi’ite agenda
It takes just a little political acumen to tell which way the (desert) wind blows. By the end of November, Shi’ite firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had made his move, coming out with all his political guns blazing to promote a “pact of honor”, which he called Iraqi parties to subscribe to.
Last Thursday, in the Baghdad neighborhood of Kadhimiya, the 14-point pact was signed by an impressive array of political heavyweights. Among them: the two main Shi’ite parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and Da’wa; the Sadrists; the Iraqi Concord Front (which is a coalition of the three major Sunni Arab parties); Ahmad Chalabi (in person); members of the de-Ba’aathification committee; a number of tribal chiefs; unions; social associations; and government employees.
Among the crucial points of the pact are: withdrawal of the occupiers and setting of an objective timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq; elimination of all the consequences of their presence, including any bases for them in the country, while working seriously for the building of [Iraqi] security institutions and military forces within a defined schedule; no more immunity for the occupation troops; no relations whatsoever with Israel; a condemnation of terrorism (“We condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing, abducting and expulsion aimed at innocent citizens for sectarian reasons.”); a condemnation of the Ba’ath Party as “a terrorist organization” and an urge “to speed up the trial of overthrown president Saddam Hussein”; and a decision to “postpone the implementation of the disputed principle of federalism”.
This, in a nutshell, is the Shi’ite agenda for the new Iraq, potentially embracing 62% of the population of roughly 25 million to 26 million. The pact may have been a Sadrist move, but there’s no reason to believe these decisions will not be implemented as the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), which is dominated by the SCIRI, Da’wa and the Sadrists, is set to become the majority in the new, 275-member Iraqi National Assembly. The whole numbers issue in the elections is by which percentage the UIA will be a majority compared to the Kurdistan coalition and the Iraqi Concord Front.
The main players
The UIA, list number 555, created with the blessing of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, received almost 50% of the votes in the January elections. Now the 18-party UIA is weaker because some parties defected. Sistani stated his position last Sunday. In January, he practically ordered all Shi’ites to vote for the UIA. Now, he is more nuanced. “These elections are just as important as the preceding ones, and citizens – both male and female – must participate in them on a wide scale in order to guarantee a big and powerful presence for those who will safeguard their verities and work energetically for their higher interests in the next parliament.”
Although not explicitly endorsing the UIA, he did advise all Shi’ites to not split and not waste their vote; this would mean something like “vote for the UIA, not for Allawi”. Politically, the…
Ed:
Election turnout in Iraq: 70%
Election turnout in Venezuela: 25%
18 December 2005, 5:34 pmStan:
Iraq turns out in hope it will expel you.
Venezuela, well… slightly different situation. US meddling htere is for a different purpose.
The Facts About Venezuela’s Parliamentary Elections
By Andy Goodall
Friday, 16 December 2005
Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the Venezuelan parliamentary election results and the circumstances surrounding them. Nevertheless, the “agenda” has been set by the corporate mass media to concentrate on the 70% – 75% abstention figure in an attempt to delegitimise the election results.
Facts belie accusations of electoral fraud
The often heard assertion that the Venezuelan National Election Council (CNE) is cheating lacks any sort of foundation. In their reports, the international observers of these elections from the EU and the OAS declared them fair and transparent, even though there was some criticism leveled at the CNE since 41% of the voters had problems understanding the automated system.
These reports do not even hint that the CNE was committing electoral or electronic fraud in any way whatsoever. In fact, 45% of the ballot boxes where printed confirmations were deposited by the voters were chosen at random, the boxes opened and the “paper trail” publicly counted in front of witnesses from all parties. All tallied with the electronic results broadcast by the voting machines.
When Jimmy Carter declared the presidential referendum results fair and transparent last August 2004, he was booed and spat on by upper class opposition supporters in a restaurant in the swanky El Rosal district of Caracas. Hardly “democratic behaviour” The opposition media said at that time that Chavez had paid Carter US$1 million to “fix the results”!!
The opposition commits political suicide
There are many omissions in the mainstream Venezuelan national media and also international mass media. For example, before the opposition withdrew (the heads of five parties called on their candidates to withdraw and boycott the elections, then 50% of the opposition candidates still participated and got nowhere) the last opinion polls indicated that the Chavez alliance would have won around 150 of the 167 seats in the National Assembly. That is the reason why the opposition withdrew, to avoid an electoral beating (they held 76 seats before these elections) and vanish from the political map.
More voters supported the National Assembly – fact not fiction
Regarding the abstention figure of 70% – 75%, there are many reasons for this high figure – opposition voters not turning out, calls for abstention, an historical abstention figure of around 55% in such elections, parliamentary elections being held separately from presidential elections, Chavez supporters not voting since the result was a foregone conclusion based on the polls, torrential rain and adverse weather conditions on the day of the vote. However these elections were legal and politically, mathematically and objectively they are also more legitimate than recent parliamentary elections in Venezuela, contrary to what the opposition has asserted and omitted to mention. Why?
In 1998, the Democratic Action Party won control of the then Congress with 11.24% of voter support from an electoral universe of approximately 10.9 million voters. This party received 1.24 million votes. In the 2000 elections, the Chavez Fifth Republic Movement won control of the National Assembly with 17% or 1.98 million votes of the electoral universe of 11.7 million voters. In the elections on December 4th 2005, the six parties in the Chavez alliance received between 22% – 23% support of the electoral universe of 14.4 million voters or approximately 3.2 million votes.
Conclusion – no one in 1998 or 2000 even mentioned that the National Assembly was not “legitimate” being controlled by parties with 11.24% and 17% respectively. So, why are opposition right wingers saying that this National Assembly is not “legitimate” when 22% – 23% of the electoral universe supported it? Objectively and mathematically, it is more legitimate than the last two legislative bodies.
All part of the same script
Therefore, this emphasis on the abstention figure to delegitimise the elections and the new National Assembly is a political ploy to discredit the CNE and the elected representatives of the Venezuelans, and destabilize the country. This has been going on since December 10th 2001, when the first general strike was called, followed by the coup d’état, economic and oil industry sabotage, organised street violence to cause chaos and these actions still continue to this day, since an oil pipeline was blown up in Zulia state just before the recent elections.
A perception of real democracy
Now that the six Chavez alliance parties have all 167 seats, the opposition will cry “foul” and that Chavez is a “dictator”. Absolute rubbish! My friends in Venezuela know that very few of their fellow countrymen think that way and it is a media invention to discredit the government, since 85% of the TV stations, radio stations and written press is controlled by the opposition.
A recent opinion poll by Latinobarometro http://www.purochile.org/inf2004l.pdf referred to by Chavez himself indicated that 74% of all Venezuelans were satisfied with their democratic system, compared to a 53% average in the rest of Latin America, and second only to Uruguay with 78%. If Chavez were considered to be “authoritarian” or a “dictator” by the Venezuelan public, this result from an independent polling organisation would have been impossible.
State powers are autonomous –it’s in the 1999 Constitution
Constitutionally both the CNE and the National Assembly are separate autonomous parts of the Venezuelan state, as is the Judiciary, the Ombudsman and the Executive. Chavez controls the Executive – the other four powers are all constitutionally and legally autonomous.
There is no hard evidence that Chavez is controlling the other state powers in a dictatorial or autocratic way. The “evidence” is in the opposition media and based on rumours, anecdotes and unsubstantiated opinions rather than facts, but repeat a falsehood a 1000 times and it will gain some credibility. Recent high court rulings have gone against the government. A good example are the Polar grain silos in Barinas state which were expropriated by the state governor’s decree (the Governor of this state is Hugo de los Reyes Chavez, the President’s father). This decree was subsequently overturned in the high court and the silos returned to the Polar Company.
Why the opposition was politically doomed
Since 2000, during the period of the last National Assembly, the opposition did not propose one single document for any new law. They only obstructed and sabotaged proceedings for five years. The new National Assembly will now be able to legislate for the good of the majority and not be forced to participate in the circus created by the opposition deputies. This behaviour and five years of irrational discourses all characterised with negative rhetoric against the government and the President in particular, laid the foundations for the political elimination of the traditional parties. Voters did not want that sort of National Assembly where laws were burned, fights broke out, deputies did not turn up to disrupt the quorum needed to legislate and a host of other obstructive measures.
More facts which are often omitted
Since 1998 10 election and/or referendums have been held in Venezuela and the Chavez alliance has wiped the floor with the opposition every time. The opposition lost by forfeit when 50% of their candidates withdrew and more tellingly called for voter abstention. For readers’ information based on solid facts, there were a total of 5,516 candidates and 556 officially withdrew – or just over 10%.
These are the facts and background behind the saga of the Venezuelan parliamentary elections and as a parallel and specifically in the case of the UK, few would call Euro MP’s or town councilors “illegitimate” because of low voter turnout.
Andy Goodall
18 December 2005, 6:42 pmEd Haywood:
Some Iraqis voted for that reason. Others did not. Many voted for a variety of reasons. You have no basis for your generalized assertion.
To the extent you are right about Iraqi sentiment, you are wrong to argue that this is a defeat for the US. Any electoral outcome which produces a stable, legitimate government is a victory for US interests in the region. If they get a handle on their security situation and ask us to leave, all the better.
I do not question the legitimacy of the Chavez government. And now you can not honestly question the legitimacy of the new Iraqi government. They were elected in a fair election with overwhelming voter participation. Ignorant statements like labeling the government as “collaborators” should be a thing of the past in your writing. Likewise for attempting to justify attacks on the Iraqi Army and Police. They are legitimate institutions defending a legitimately elected government.
21 December 2005, 7:02 amStan:
Ed, you can’t simplify your way out of this. Of course there were many motivation to vote. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You cannot take this to mean that the occupation is legitimate… or that people voting under this kind of situational duress translates into either a legitimate or functional government.
You are merely restating your own premises as conclusions.
Many have declared they would vote AND continue the armed resistance.
And I’ll risk another prognosticaiton… your own government will try and subvert the will of your majority before this is over — who knows under what pretext — because they have not the slightest intention of allowing the “democratic” result to be a pro-Iranian state in the region.
Perhaps we could emulate this new Iraqi democracy, and organize death squads like the Badr militia to attack minorities. Gracious!
21 December 2005, 12:37 pmdoviende:
on a slight tangent, there’s an article in the Onion today about withdrawing troops from Iraq, and how the troops have their own exit strategy. quite funny
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43693
“In a striking rebuke of the assertions of the Pentagon and the White House that a swift exit is neither practical nor possible, soldiers of varying rank have outlined a straightforward plan of immediate disengagement, dubbed “Operation Screw This.”"
“A recent ABC News poll found that the American people are split on the exit strategy. A University of Baghdad survey, however, finds that the exit strategy has the support of approximately 99.3 percent of the Iraqi population.”
haha, i love the onion. It’s amazing how the news-satires like the Onion and the Daily Show have so many insights that the real news can’t bring itself to say
Satire is obsolete, though, when the bush regime says things like they’ll withdraw after the insurgency is ‘defused’….firstly in that they’ll probably never fully withdraw in any situation other than utter defeat, and secondly in that the insurgency will always exist in some form as long as they’re still there.
21 December 2005, 3:32 pmEd:
I don’t need to get my way out of anything. I’m quite happy with the result. 70% turnout speaks for itself. It’s you who feels the need to conjure an alternate reality.
I’m not arguing that the election makes continued occupation legitimate. That’s a strawman. I’m arguing that the election makes the new government a legitimate representative for the will of the Iraqi people, and that the new government can legitimately decide on what terms the US presence will continue (or not).
21 December 2005, 4:32 pmConsumer:
Ed, you’re happy with the results of an election that would never have occurred if the US hadn’t violated international law and invaded a sovereign nation with no provocation.
The end justifies the means, right? That’s fine. Let’s apply that rule equally to all parties.
In this fantasy world, Cuba would have the right to draw up a list of well-documented grievances against the US (Bay of Pigs, crippling sanctions, US-sponsored terrorism, etc.) and demand that the UN form a coalition to depose of this terrorist regime. Were the UN to refuse, Cuba would have the right, nay, the obligation! to invade and restructure the US as they see fit. Of course this scenario is laughable, ridiculous, right?
Why?
People like you are incapable of applying the above formula, that being that all rules need to apply equally to all parties. This is the premise of international law.
Also, if we abhor an AQ attack on police forces, then we must abhor the masive bombing of civilian areas.
So you can stuff the above post dripping with self-congratulatory smugness. Had an election! 70% turnout! Mission Accomplished!
The game is far from over. And when this whole mess implodes further, as it’s likely to do, I’ll be happy to address your lamentations that our intentions were noble but the ass-backwards Iraqis f****d it up, poor dears.
If I remember correctly, you’re there now. Glad to see you’re still alive.
27 December 2005, 5:10 pmTimothy R. Anderson:
Yesterday’s Wall Streeet Journal had an op.-ed. piece by 1 st Lt. Pete Hegseth. In it, he questions why the Pentagon and the White House have gone with the ” bare minimum ” approach as regards the Iraq War. Let’s face it, this Hegseth character is on to something !
Because , while President Bush claimed that the “full force and might ” of the USA’s military would be used in Iraq , IT JUST HASN ‘ T
H A P P EN E D . Which is sad, because folks such as Hegseth are left wondering why the
effort is so lukewarm.
War IS a racket, you know. http://www.waris
aracket.org
Timothy R. Anderson, grandson of a farmer.
4 October 2006, 3:08 pmTimothy R. Anderson:
Aaaaand another thing.
The effort of the USA’s military in Iraq is covered in great detail by Dahr Jamail.
1 February 2011, 3:58 pmhttp://www.dahrjamailiraq.com
Timothy R. Anderson