There's elections and there's elections

by David Grand
December 16, 2004

Some are as clean as a hound's tooth as our recent presidential election was by and large. Some are rigged as in the Ukrainian presidential race. Some are disputed as were Florida's votes in the 2000 election. Some are as inconclusive as Afghanistan's presidential election, with the warlords remaining firmly in control of most of the country. Some are as surprising as Carrollians voting by a large margin for 5 commissioners. And some are as predetermined as Saddam Hussein being reelected president by a 99.9 percent plurality. (Woe betide that one-tenth of a percent who didn't vote for him.) 

But the scheduled election in Iraq on Jan. 30 stand to be a real wingdinger, if not a farce, what with the Sunni political party demanding that the elections be postponed for at least six months to ensure security at the polls, and Sunni clerics calling for a boycott of the elections, with its chief cleric saying it would be "madness" to hold an election in January.

However, notwithstanding the pleas of those urging delay, President Bush is adamant that the vote was too important to put off, despite all the violence and unrest throughout the country; and predicting that the elections would leave the world "amazed that a society has been transformed so quickly."

On the contrary, I'd expect the rest of the world is dumbfounded that he'd even consider pushing for an election before an end to the fighting is achieved. And no doubt question how a free election could possibly be held in what is an occupied country, unprecedented as it would be.

However, postponing the election does have a downside. For the Shiite parties, which represent 65 percent of the population, would surely take to the streets and possibly ignite a civil war. They clearly want all the pie, leaving the Sunnis and Kurds only the crust. But isn't majority rule the underpinning in any democracy?         

Just recently the Shiite parties presented a list of 228 candidates for next month's election, which places the minority Sunnis in the position of having to decide to join the race or renounce a vote that will help determine the country's future. And adding to the mix, the main Kurdish parties plan on contesting the vote with their own unified list.  What a hodgepodge that election would be.        

And to muddy up the water even more separate candidate lists are also being compiled by President Ghazi and Prime Minster Ayad Allawi, a Sunni who the Shiites don't trust any further than they could throw him. Allawi also came up with the harebrained idea of staggering the vote as a good way to handle security concerns. Heck, that would only succeed in giving insurgents time in which to redeploy and rearm during the intervals.       

However, there's good and bad news. The good news is that the Shiite Political Council does not include in its roster the movement of that firebrand Shiite cleric al-Sadr, who is waiting to see how the vote plays out before deciding what course of action he'll take. And the bad news is that the major Shiite political parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and the Dawa party, have strong links with Iran's Shiites.      

Wouldn't that be a revolting development, if after all of our efforts to bring about a democracy there, and the casualities we've suffered, Iraq ends up by becoming an Islamic State, ruled by a handful of mullahs who ensure that all legislation enacted by the parliament conforms to Islamic principles, including their approving candidates for presidential, legislative and other elections.      

And were that worst-case scenario to occur, I doubt if many Americans would then reject the parallel often drawn with Vietnam, albeit the casualty figures are much lower. Small comfort, however, that'd be for the families of the 1,200 troops killed to date and the 9,000 wounded.