You call this Democracy!

[Billo_Really]

Bush, Iraq, and Demonstration Elections
by Rahul Mahajan

Much propaganda has been made of the local “elections” instituted by U.S. forces, but to believe it calls for a willing disjunction from reality. In some places, the “election” was an appointment of mayor and/or city council members by the local U.S. commander, sometimes disastrously, as when U.S. forces appointed a Sunni from Baghdad to be mayor of the mostly Shi’a Najaf, cancelled an election he would surely have lost, and later had to remove him anyway because of charges of corruption and Ba’athist links (WP, 6/28/03, and others). In Basra, British and U.S. forces appointed local officials and then removed them and decided explicitly that Iraqis would only serve in a technocratic capacity, not a political one (WP, 5/29/03). In other places, like Kirkuk, the “election” was one conducted by 300 delegates all hand-picked and vetted by U.S. forces, not by the people of Kirkuk.

In late June 2003, U.S. commanders had ordered a halt to all local elections, because they had determined that in many places people and groups they didn’t like were too popular and might win (WP, 6/28/03). That is unfortunately one of the problems with democracy. A few days later, Paul Bremer approved resumption of elections (WP, 7/1/03), but allowed local commanders to choose between appointment, election by specially vetted caucuses, and actual elections; unstated was the conclusion that U.S. commanders should choose the form of “election” based on the likelihood of getting the result they wanted.

All of these experiments in “democracy” were, of course, in a context where U.S. commanders could countermand any city council decision and dissolve any council as they so chose.

At the national level, things have been similarly manipulated. Of course, elections have been postponed repeatedly, even though the difficulties that exist in Afghanistan did not exist in Iraq (for example, the ubiquitous ration cards could have been used as a basis for voter identification and registration); even the January 2005 elections are mandated only because other countries on the Security Council insisted on the setting of a date as a condition for approving Resolution 1546, on the so-called “transfer of sovereignty.”

Furthermore, numerous other ostensibly national political processes have been cancelled or manipulated as well. An assembly planned for June 2003, that would have involved mostly the U.S.-designated exile-dominated “Iraqi opposition” was cancelled by Paul Bremer. He said it was because the “opposition” was not representative of the country; then, a month later he chose, entirely on his own authority, 25 people, 16 of them exiles, to form the Governing Council.

This August, as the center of Najaf was ceaselessly bombarded, a national conference of roughly 1300 delegates met to select the interim national assembly, a body of 100 people whose formation was mandated by the “transfer of sovereignty” process (actually, 81 delegates were to be selected, the other 19 coming from the old Governing Council). Ostensibly picked by democratic processes in their locality, the delegates certainly did represent a wide variety of parties and views, although major groups opposed to the occupation were under-represented (Moqtada al-Sadr, whose organization was under military assault at the time, boycotted the conference).

However, the delegates at the conference learned that there would be no nomination of candidates, campaigning, or elections but instead, a pre-selected slate of 81 candidates, picked by back-room negotiations between the major U.S.-affiliated parties. Attempts by small parties to form an alternative slate fell through; at the end, the U.S.-backed slate was not even presented to the delegates for formal approval.

This last was a sham that would likely embarrass even Vladimir Putin. Apparently, the Bush administration is happy with elections in places it controls, like Afghanistan or Iraq, as long as there are no choices (when there are, as in Florida, strange things can happen). There is not a shred of a reason to doubt that this is precisely what is planned for the January elections in Iraq – collusion by the U.S.-backed political parties to pick Iraqi figures who will continue to collaborate with the occupation and to shut out all other Iraqi voices. Now that the New York Times has weighed in on this particular election engineering scheme, it may well be traded in for another, but the recent history of U.S. foreign policy suggests that, no matter what, a free election will not be allowed.

http://www.empirenotes.org/shamelections.html

Apparently, Bush fixes elections in Iraq too!

I don't see how we can bring democracy to the ME when it is virtually non-existant in our own country. We have an oligarchy! Iraq has a dictator by proxy.

 

[jfuh]

Apparently, Bush fixes elections in Iraq too!

I don't see how we can bring democracy to the ME when it is virtually non-existant in our own country. We have an oligarchy! Iraq has a dictator by proxy.

I respectfully disagree. No I don't see this as non-democratic. Instead I see this for the preservation of democracy within Iraq. The religious sectarian sector is much too popular in many of those areas and would likely create a sectarian government. It's like a teenager filled with rage and horomones that has little knowledge of what s/he's actually doing merely acting on impulse. The environment within Iraq currently I do not think is mature enough without "parenting". It's in the best interest of the US to have a secular and truly democratic government in Iraq now then it would be for an Iran 2.0 to form, which is exactly what would happen if those elections were allowed to proceed without any intervention for now.

So surprisingly, yes, I'm actually defending the Bush admin's policy on this issue.
As for Florida.... well that's an entirely different story that I'd rather not get drawn into.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jfuh:
The religious sectarian sector is much too popular in many of those areas and would likely create a sectarian government.

Are you talking about the "red states" or just Christian Republicans in general?

 

[jfuh]

Are you talking about the "red states" or just Christian Republicans in general?

:lamo, oh how I wish it were applicable to those.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jfuh:
oh how I wish it were applicable to those.

We can discuss the difference between Islamic Mullah's and Christian Mullah's on another thread. The point I'm trying to make with this one is that if the article I posted is true, then democracy is the last thing their getting over there. You can't have a democracy without fair elections and a well informed republic. This article alleges that fairness in these elections is no where to be found. Were doing what the Soviets did in Kabul 25 years ago. Bush even publically stated his displeasure for the former Prime Minister front runner in Iraq's government. What the hell is it any of that is his business?

The biggest reason I am against this whole invasion is the basic premise that no one government has the right to tell a sovereign nation what to do within their own borders without the support of the world community. And Bush, as I'm sure you know, shunned that world community by attacking. Funny, now with the situation with Iran, he is throwing the "world community" angle in the face of the Iranians. Well, why should they care if he didn't?

Finally, we need to pay more attention on our system of government before we start showing others how it is done. Were not a good example at the moment. Do Americans just not care to participate in the political process? Or are we just deliberately ignorant because the alternative is just too painful to deal with?

 

[jfuh]

We can discuss the difference between Islamic Mullah's and Christian Mullah's on another thread. The point I'm trying to make with this one is that if the article I posted is true, then democracy is the last thing their getting over there. You can't have a democracy without fair elections and a well informed republic. This article alleges that fairness in these elections is no where to be found. Were doing what the Soviets did in Kabul 25 years ago. Bush even publically stated his displeasure for the former Prime Minister front runner in Iraq's government. What the hell is it any of that is his business?

The biggest reason I am against this whole invasion is the basic premise that no one government has the right to tell a sovereign nation what to do within their own borders without the support of the world community. And Bush, as I'm sure you know, shunned that world community by attacking. Funny, now with the situation with Iran, he is throwing the "world community" angle in the face of the Iranians. Well, why should they care if he didn't?

Finally, we need to pay more attention on our system of government before we start showing others how it is done. Were not a good example at the moment. Do Americans just not care to participate in the political process? Or are we just deliberately ignorant because the alternative is just too painful to deal with?

Humans are an interesting speices. We'll fight and die for what we don't have, but completely ignore what we do have. The grass is always greener on the other side.
It's like the dog crossing the bridge with the bone in his mouth. Looks over and oh wow look there, another dog with a bone in the water. Barks at the "other" dog and looses its own bone.
We're in that same situation now. Barking at dictators while we're loosing our own democracy.

 

[oldreliable67]

if the article I posted is true, then democracy is the last thing their getting over there.

Reading the article that you cited, I get the impression that the facts are most probably true, but the conclusions are faulty. Notice that the article you cited is a bit dated (the author cites a NYT article of Sep '04 as being "recent") and the events discussed in the article are all immediately following the defeat of the Iraqi military:

In late June 2003, U.S. commanders had ordered a halt to all local elections, because they had determined that in many places people and groups they didn’t like were too popular and might win (WP, 6/28/03). That is unfortunately one of the problems with democracy. A few days later, Paul Bremer approved resumption of elections (WP, 7/1/03), but allowed local commanders to choose between appointment, election by specially vetted caucuses, and actual elections; unstated was the conclusion that U.S. commanders should choose the form of “election” based on the likelihood of getting the result they wanted.

Like most of the events discussed in the article, this was in 2003, immediately following the crushing of the Iraqi Army. At that point in time, it is entirely logical for our military to approve of or 'hand-select' candidates for public office. MacArthur did the very same thing in Japan; the very same thing was done in Germany. Seems to me, that with the infrastructure in a shambles, it was both our and the Iraqi's best interest to have people in office with whom we believe we can work.

I haven't done any specific searching on the more recent elections, but my impression and my memory is that the candidates then were truly selected by the Iraqis. That is not to say that the US did not express preferences, and if we did, why not? Nonetheless, unless I have the wrong impression, the last elections were entirely an Iraqi affair.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Like most of the events discussed in the article, this was in 2003, immediately following the crushing of the Iraqi Army. At that point in time, it is entirely logical for our military to approve of or 'hand-select' candidates for public office. MacArthur did the very same thing in Japan; the very same thing was done in Germany. Seems to me, that with the infrastructure in a shambles, it was both our and the Iraqi's best interest to have people in office with whom we believe we can work.

I haven't done any specific searching on the more recent elections, but my impression and my memory is that the candidates then were truly selected by the Iraqis. That is not to say that the US did not express preferences, and if we did, why not? Nonetheless, unless I have the wrong impression, the last elections were entirely an Iraqi affair.

I've never liked more posts from someone I have disagreed with more than yours.

Your comments are always welcome.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jfuh:
We're in that same situation now. Barking at dictators while we're loosing our own democracy.

Didn't I just say this to you on another thread? I must be losing my mind.

 

[jfuh]

Didn't I just say this to you on another thread? I must be losing my mind.

Dunno if you did or not. If you did just take it as my re-emphasising it.