Iraqi Elections
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, January 31, 2005 18:34
VIEWED: 3923
PAGE 1 of 3
Iraq is supposed to hold elections for a 275 member Transitional National Assembly in late January. Registration and voting procedures, and the method of selecting a president and prime minister, are outlined in the BBC Q&A article at this link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3971635.stm
This assembly is to develop a national constitution in time for the election of a permanent government by December 2005.
The Coalition and Allawi government of course support this election. The U.N. supports it. They actually wanted it sooner. The European Union supports it. The Iraqi Shiites support it. The Iraqi Kurds support it. Bush is on record as accepting the result even if it is a religious government.
The only people who seem to oppose it are the Sunnis, who threaten a boycott, and the insurgents, who have recently been destroying voter registration rolls and ballots, and threatening election workers.
So, is the election a good thing, which may be the first step in allowing the Iraqi people self-determination, or is it all right to allow the minority to prevent it?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm interested in the procedure by which nation-wide slates of candidates are proposed by the various partys, and the people vote for the slate, rather than individuals. In a country that has so much tribal, religious, and clan loyalty, and that relies on consensus decisions by religious and tribal elders to resolve disputes, this seems to me to be an attempt to recognize this fact by presenting the party slates as sort of a 'super-clan', representing the interests of similar tribes, clans and religious factions.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Opps. I created a new thread on this topic for you. I even promsied not to post in that thread! Sorry about that! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Iraq is supposed to hold elections for a 275 member Transitional National Assembly in late January. Registration and voting procedures, and the method of selecting a president and prime minister, are outlined in the BBC Q&A article at this link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3971635.stm
This assembly is to develop a national constitution in time for the election of a permanent government by December 2005.
The Coalition and Allawi government of course support this election. The U.N. supports it. They actually wanted it sooner. The European Union supports it. The Iraqi Shiites support it. The Iraqi Kurds support it. Bush is on record as accepting the result even if it is a religious government.
The only people who seem to oppose it are the Sunnis, who threaten a boycott, and the insurgents, who have recently been destroying voter registration rolls and ballots, and threatening election workers.
So, is the election a good thing, which may be the first step in allowing the Iraqi people self-determination, or is it all right to allow the minority to prevent it?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Well, I hope it happens. I hope the Sunnis try and take a realistic stance on the process. I think it's walking a very fine line and Iraq is on the brink of a potential civil war. The Sunnis are definitely outnumbered in Iraq, unless Iran starts sending in more insurgents. So ultimately, it is up to the Sunnis to decide whether or not they want to participate in a constructive way or create a civil war.
It's strange to see the term religious government as being potentially counter to democratic beliefs. It seems to me that every democratic government has in one way or another been built upon the premise of religion and morality (however skewed). Personally, I can see the viable possibility of an Islamic democracy, that would eventually find itself mutating to allow for modern freedoms (womens right to vote etc..etc..).
The first Iraqi elections are bound to be fraught with issues, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held. You have to start somewhere.
Its similar to the concept of folks waiting to have children until they can afford to have them hehe. If you wait till you can afford them..you'll never have them. I feel the same about the Iraqi elections.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
156 Parties to Run in Iraq Elections
Updated: Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004 - 8:54 AM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission said Tuesday that 156 political parties have been approved to run candidates in the Jan. 30 general election.
They included the Iraqi National Accord party led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and the new party of President Ghazi al-Yawer, called the Iraqis' Party, commission spokesman Farid Ayar said in a statement.
Ayar said 212 parties applied for certification but 56 were rejected for failing to meet criteria.
Also among those approved was the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group that had threatened to boycott the election to protest the U.S.-led offensive against Fallujah. The party later decided to participate.
(Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Looks like at least some of the Sunnis are willing to play. Maybe the Arab governments participating in the conference in Egypt can do some jawboning and get some of the other Sunni factions to give it a try. If not, they'll really be out in the cold.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
156 Parties to Run in Iraq Elections
Updated: Tuesday, Nov. 23, 2004 - 8:54 AM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission said Tuesday that 156 political parties have been approved to run candidates in the Jan. 30 general election.
They included the Iraqi National Accord party led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and the new party of President Ghazi al-Yawer, called the Iraqis' Party, commission spokesman Farid Ayar said in a statement.
Ayar said 212 parties applied for certification but 56 were rejected for failing to meet criteria.
Also among those approved was the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group that had threatened to boycott the election to protest the U.S.-led offensive against Fallujah. The party later decided to participate.
(Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Looks like at least some of the Sunnis are willing to play. Maybe the Arab governments participating in the conference in Egypt can do some jawboning and get some of the other Sunni factions to give it a try. If not, they'll really be out in the cold.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
It would be a real testament to the Iraqi peoples to see all those involved participate in a constructive way. Here's to hope!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like the election is getting closer to reality. Shi'a, Kurd, Sunni, and coalition parties from both religious and secular sides are registered and starting to campaign. Even Moqtada Sadr is playing nice. The Sunni boycott doesn't seem to have as much support as it did, and they're joining in.
The big problem now is the insurgency, who seem to want to derail the process. It's a testament to the mainstream Iraqis that they are willing to risk so much to hold their election. The probably realize that they'll get rid of the U.S. sooner if they have a government that can legally kick us out.
Anyone have thoughts on the election at this point?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought that Allawi would win, but likely it will be the slate that Sistani is associated with. Allawi & CO. are rather uneasy about Iran's potential influence over post-election Iraq, as many high-level Shiite's in Sistani's group harbored in Iran during the Saddam days.
ConorFlynn- The insurgents are not coming from Iran. Iran is mainly Shiite, and has close ties to Sistani. Judging by the apparent popularity of Sistani's group, Iran would have everything to gain and nothing to lose from a successful election. The insurgents are prolly mostly Sunnis, who see their political dominance coming to a screeching halt, with some help from foreigners.
If Sistani wins, I suspect that his group will prolly forge close (but unofficial/ under the radar) ties with Iran.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ConorFlynn- The insurgents are not coming from Iran. Iran is mainly Shiite, and has close ties to Sistani. Judging by the apparent popularity of Sistani's group, Iran would have everything to gain and nothing to lose from a successful election. The insurgents are prolly mostly Sunnis, who see their political dominance coming to a screeching halt, with some help from foreigners.
If Sistani wins, I suspect that his group will work very, very hard to remove USA troops, and will prolly forge close (but unofficial/ under the radar) ties with Iran.
Well I disagree with you on whether or not there are insurgents from Iran. Here's an interesting compilation with several mentions of Iranian Insurgencies. There are only several hundred other links that discuss similar notions.
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/BNIranvIraq05-11-2004.pdf
Heres a snippet from US News. You ave to purchase a copy of the article. So I'll just throw a little out there:)
Quote:
Title: Special Report: The Iran Connection
Author(s): Edward T. Pound with Jennifer Jack
Citation: November 22, 2004 p 34-38, 40-44, 46, 48
Section: Special Report , The Iran Connection
Subjects: IRAN; IRAQ; INTELLIGENCE SERVICES; MILITARY INTELLIGENCE; FOREIGN POLICY, US; MIDDLE EAST; VIOLENCE; TERRORISM; INTERNATIONAL SECURITY; CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS; WEAPONS
Word Count: 6119
Abstract: U.S. intelligence services are reporting acts by factions of the government of Iran that are meant to drive coalition forces out of Iraq and destabilize the Middle East. Those acts include setting up intelligence networks in Shiite cities in Iraq, planning attacks against American targets, supplying funding, weapons, training, and safe havens to Iraqi insurgents, supporting Ansar al-Islam and Sadr's Mahdi militia, and placing bounties on American soldiers.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/041122/20041122046941_brief
.php
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The paper details close ties between al-Sadr and Iran. Nothing new there. Sistani and Chalabi (who is in the Sistani-backed list) also have close ties to Iran. In fact, as I said before, MANY influential Shiites have ties to Iran. The question is not "whether" Iran seeks to influence/ create an Iraqi government (of course it does) but the best means that it perceives towards that goal. Right now, an election process may be the best means because it gets Iran a toehold in an Iraqi government that would be preceived as "legitimate" by the international community, at no cost in lives and materiel. Seeking to take over Iraq through insurgent action would create a government that would be shunned internationally and difficult to maintain. It's much easier to be the power behind the power behind the throne.
As far as Zarqawi is concerned, he has his own rabid anti-American agenda which overlaps with Iran's in some ways, and in some ways it deosn't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME