|
Voting
against Occupation: Iraqs Election Results
with
Douglas Whitehead; In Ruckus [Vol. 8, Iss. 4, February 2005]
7,200 candidates, organized into 83 electoral
blocs. 75 seperate attacks and 44 killings by the Iraqi Resistance.
Thats a lot of democracy, eh? Invasions and corporate interest
aside, what were the results of the Iraqi election?
On Sunday, January 30th 2005, Iraq held its
first elections since the fall of Saddam Houssein in April 2003.
The event was lauded as a major success in mainstream Western media.
The election fell ten days after President George W. Bushs
inaugural speech in which he announced, using the familiar neo-conservative
buzzwords, that Americas future depends on the success of
democracy overseas, and called the election a historic event. Bush
added, in light of election-day violence that claimed the lives
of over 40 people, that some Iraqis may die while exercising their
rights as citizens.
Three concurrent elections took place. The
major election was for the 275 member Iraqi National Assembly, the
legislative body responsible for drafting Iraqs permanent
constitution and the eventual election of Iraqs president
and prime minister. Elections were also held for local Governorate
Councils, as well as for the Kurdish National Assembly in Kurdistan.
About 58% of registered voters turned out
in Iraqs late January elections. However, the turnout was
far from homogenous amongst Iraqs diverse ethnic and religious
groups. In particular, there was a very low voter turnout amongst
Iraqs Sunni Moslems, with most estimates as low as 9%, in
contrast to turnouts of around 70% for other major groups. This
is hardly surprising in view of Sunni clerics call for an election
boycott in protest at U.S.-led assaults on Sunni-dominated cities.
The high voter turnout among Shiites and
Kurds is itself also not lacking in controversy. Voters in Shiite
areas of Baghdad, for example, faced threats from government officials
of withholding food rations unless they signed voter registration
cards. Others complained that US troops in cities near Baghdad tried
to coerce people into voting. Elsewhere, in Kurdish areas to the
North, voters have complained of voting irregularities, such as
early closures of polling stations, as well as the peculiar absence
of certain Kurdish political parties on the ballots.
The Sunni-Kurdish Split
What are the implications for Iraqs
future government? The fair & balanced people at FOX-NEWS will
probably tell you that Iraq consists of lots of Shiites, some Sunnis
and some Kurds. We at Ruckus will tell you that, in fact, Iraq ethnically
comprises about 75% Arab and 20% Kurdish peoples. (Minorities, such
as Assyrians and Turkomans, make up the remaining 5%.) Religiously,
Shiite and Sunni Moslems make up 65% and 32% respectively, with
the remaining 3% made up largely peoples of Christian faith. The
vast majority of Iraqi Kurds adhere to Sunni Islam.
Iraqs Sunni Moslems are strongly split
along the Kurd-Arab ethnic division, however. In Iraqs three
predominantly Kurdish provinces in the north, the Kurdish nationalist
parties consisting mainly of the Kurdistan Democratic Party
(KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) - have formed a
joint electoral bloc called the Kurdistan Alliance. They have also
cunningly amalgamated all nine other Kurdish political factions:
the Assyrian National Party, the Chaldean Democratic Union Party,
the Democratic House of the Two Rivers Party, the Democratic National
Union of Kurdistan, the Kurdistan Democratic Socialist Party, the
Kurdish Islamic Union, the Kurdistan Movement of the Peasants and
Oppressed, the Kurdistan Toilers Party (Zahmatkeshan) and even the
Kurdistan Communist Party.
The Alliance, in other words, campaigned
for votes almost exclusively among Kurds, with the main objective
of consolidating the region around Kirkuk into the Kurdish sphere
and thereby limit the influence of a central Iraqi government. As
a result, they stand to control 26% of Iraqs new Assembly.
Winners and Losers
Iraqis voted largely for parties and leaders
of their own ethnicity and religion, giving Shiite parties is massive
advantage. Not all Shiites voted for non-secular parties, of course.
Yet, in the predominantly Shiite precincts in the south, about four-fifths
of votes went towards the religious Shiite United Iraqi Alliance
(UIA), giving rise to a final vote for the UIA of 48%.
The UIAs main components are the sectarian
Shiite fundamentalist parties: the pro-Iranian Supreme Council for
the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party.
Other incorporated bodies include the Badr Organisation, the Central
Grouping Party, the Islamic Fayli Grouping in Iraq, Al-Fadilah Islamic
Party, the First Democratic National Party, the Islamic Fayli Grouping
in Iraq, Iraq's Future Grouping, the Hezbollah Movement in Iraq,
the Justice and Equality Grouping, the Iraqi National Congress,
the Islamic al-Dawah Party-Iraq Organisation, the Islamic Master
of the Martyrs Movement, the Islamic Task Organisation, and the
Islamic Union for Iraqi Turkomans.
The current Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's
more secular U.S.-funded Shiite coalition, the Iraqi National Accord
(INA), heads a party known as the Iraqi List. The Iraqi List also
represents the Council of Iraq's Notables, the Iraqi Democrats Movement,
the Democratic National Awakening Party, the Loyalty to Iraq Grouping
and the Iraqi Independents Association. The Iraqi List won a dismal
14% of votes.
It is undeniably the Sunni Arabs who stand
to lose most from the current state of Iraqi politics. Anticipating
this, an influencial Sunni religious body known as the Association
of Muslim Scholars had called for a boycott of the elections. The
Association has taken a leading role in representing Sunni Iraqis
in the absence of an organized Sunni political movement. The Sunni
political vacuum results largely from the banning of former Baath
Party officials from the elections.
Predictably, then, things did not bode well
for the Iraqi Islamic Party, the main Sunni party in Iraq. It was
lucky to get eight seats in the Assembly. Some other noteworthy
parties and individuals that boycotted the elections were the National
Front for the Unity of Iraq, Shaykh Muhammad Jawwad al-Khalisi (Secretary-General
of the INCC), Dr. Wamid Jamal Nazmi, the Arab Nationalist Trend
Movement, Imam al-Khalisi University, the Democratic Reform Party,
the United National Front, the Iraqi Turkoman Front, the Iraqi Christian
Democratic Party, the Islamic Bloc in Iraq, the Office of Ayatollah
Ahmad al-Husayni al-Baghdadi, the Office of Ayatollah Qasim al-Tai,
the Union of Iraqi Jurists, the Higher Committee for Human Rights,
and the Iraqi Women's Association.
Of the roughly 280,000 voters registered
outside of the country (roughly 23% of all exiled Iraqis), about
93% voted in the election. The Iraq Out of Country Voting Program
(http://www.iraqocv.org) estimates that about 36% of absentee votes
went to the United Iraqi Alliance, about 29.6% to the Kurdish Alliance,
with around 9% going to the Iraqi List, 4.41% to the Communist Peoples
Union, and the rest scattered among the remaining 7,000 or so parties.
Analysis
Even though Interim Prime Minister Allawi
has been effectively marginalized by his partys low turnout,
things may still turn out in favor of the United States. SCIRI,
the Iranian-backed front-runner within UIA is currently headed by
Interim Iraqi Finance Minister Adel Abd al-Mahdi. Al-Mahdi has been
a vocal supporter of the privatization of Iraqs state-owned
enterprises, and assured Washington back in December 2004 that he
would enact oil-laws that would be promising to American investors.
The UIA also includes the Iraqi National Congress of one-time U.S.
favorite Ahmed Chalabi, whose future in the new Iraqi government
will hinge on the ability of the UIA to form a successful coalition.
Conclusions
Questions have to be raised about the election
process. Iraqi voters were presented with lists of thousands of
political parties to choose from, about which most had little to
no knowledge. The country itself was put under lock-down, with extended
curfews and closed borders, and no international observers were
allowed into the country to monitor the election. Whats more,
the election was held under the penumbra of a foreign occupation,
a process declared illegitimate by the Hague Convention of 1907,
in which no foreign power may make permanent changes to the government
of an occupied territory.
It is interesting, therefore, that when asked
why they came out to vote, most Iraqis (Shiites and Kurds included)
answered overwhelmingly that they were voting for the end of the
occupation and a return of Iraqi national sovereignty. This hope
seems unlikely to be answered. President Bush has given no timeline
for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and plans are already underway
for the construction of four permanent U.S. military bases in the
country.
Perhaps most ironic is the fact that, despite
all the anti-occupation sentiments among Iraqi voters, the most
successful parties thus far are led by people like Abdel Mahdi,
a person who announced at a recent press conference that he would
open up Iraqi national Oil to foreign investors, (effectively guaranteeing
the US a monopoly on Iraqi oil) and Ayad Allawi, the CIA backed
prime minister of the occupation government.
The new Iraqi government will have a difficult
balancing act on its hands. On the one hand, the new government
will have to deal with the United States, who is poised to remain
in Iraq indefinitely. On the other hand, the government will face
challenges on the domestic front. Sunni Arabs will be grossly underrepresented
in the new government. Complicating issues further is the problem
of Iran. The leading Shiite cleric, Iranian born Ayatollah al-Sistani,
who at one point was at the center of the insurgency against American
troops, is one of SCIRs biggest supporters.
A New York Times article from 1967 on the
elections in South Vietnam began circulating over the Internet shortly
after the election. It reported that amidst Vietcong terrorism,
83% of South Vietnams roughly 6 million voters voted in the
election, which then president Johnson saw as an encouraging sign
in the establishment of a legitimate democratic government in South
Vietnam.
While it may not be appropriate to make such
an analogy at this early a stage, the eerie similarity between the
media coverage of Iraq and Vietnam could be a sign of bad things
to come. The U.S. did not pull out Vietnam until 8 years later,
leaving 50,000 American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese civilians
dead, as well as three countries in total ruin.
In light of what we learned (or at least,
should have learned) from Vietnam, its difficult to see the
elections as a success without a complete withdrawal of US troops
from Iraq. If Vietnam tells us anything, its that many more
Iraqis, perhaps millions, will die pursuing their rights as
citizens.
|
|