Posted on 12/06/2004 5:10:58 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
Many commentators have questioned whether the Iraqi elections, scheduled for 30 January, 2004, should be delayed. Such comments from anyone at the UN should be rejected out of hand. After all, the UN is dominated by dictatorships who fear free elections the way vampires fear necklaces of garlic. Plus, the UN is on a long, unrelieved run of anti-Americanism. Whatever the US favors, UN bureaucrats will instinctively oppose.
But some of the groundswell to delay the Iraqi election comes from the likes of the New York Times, who ought to know better. This is perhaps the tenth time I have quoted George Santayana’s statement, “Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.” Those who forget the history of the most durable democratic republic in history (the US) will not understand the path to success for any other nation.
What was the most important election in US history? We’ve had elections during wars. We’ve had elections during Depressions. But the most critical election was the first one, in 1789, when our Constitution first went into effect and George Washington, who set many examples for all Presidents to come, was first elected.
Some of the better-prepared (but less seen or read) pundits have noted that during the Civil War some states did not participate in the election of Abraham Lincoln. Yet that fact did not make his election illegitimate. There is an example clearer than that, which all sources except this column you are now reading, have missed.
How many states existed during that first presidential election in 1789? Just the original 13 states.
How many states took part in the election of George Washington in 1789? (This is not a trick question.) Only 10 states took part in that election.
A reporter or editor who was competently prepared on the subject of democracy in America would know the following facts: As of the election of 1789, two states were not part of the Union. North Carolina and Rhode Island had both failed to ratify the Constitution. As the relatively unknown fifth page of the Constitution provided, it applied only to “the states so ratifying the same.” So there were only 11 states in the Union at that time.
What was the other state missing from that election? New York did not participate because its legislature hadn’t passed an election law in time so that state could take part.
Anyone who cares to check the facts will find that only 10 states cast Electoral College votes in the election of George Washington. They’ll also find that the election of Washington was not unanimous; a total of eleven other men received votes for President in that election. But the most important aspect of that election was that it took place, and that a stable US government resulted from that.
Consider the failure of American governance which preceded that election. Under the prior constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had failed. Our diplomats were reduced to being beggars in foreign capitols, borrowing money at high rates of interest to keep the government afloat. Financial failure at home and inability to pay war debts had led directly to Shay’s Rebellion, which came close to toppling the American government, and also threatened more of the same.
It was this national failure which led to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. But however good the Constitution that the Convention produced might be in theory, national and international respect and legitimacy of the US could not be restored until an actual government was elected and began to function under that Constitution.
You now see the parallel with Iraq in the 21 century. Iraq is now squarely on the cusp between abject failure as a government, and possible success greater than any other Arab government in history. It has a theory of government – a constitution. But until it conducts its first honest and successful election under that constitution, there is no chance of success and the odds of failure grow by the day.
It would have been a disaster for the US to delay the election of 1789 because 3 of 13 states were not participating. For the exact same reasons, it would be a disaster for the Iraqi election of 2005 to be delayed because 4 of its 18 provinces might not be able to participate. History is a fine teacher, but only for those who bother to read it.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net
there are competing factors at work in that analysis. what you say is true, except for one thing - the way the insurgents "win" by having the election trigger a civil war, is by having US public support drop off the cliff. they will dig in until public opinion forces a US policy change (and let's not kid ourselves, we can sustain this with a 54% support level, but if it drops to 30%, we can't) - they are betting that the "democratic forces" of iraq cannot put together a credible fighting force to defeat them without the US military. and from what we have seen so far, they are probably right.
This is one of the most intense and thought provoking debates I've read. Does anyone have info on what the Iraqi's want or is that just to hard too figure out? I haven't been on The Model( iraqi web blog) lately.
What if the vote went on, province by province or city by city....leaving the most violent ones for last? Or is the fear that there will be just random attacks everywhere all accross the country?
I liked the suggestion of really buffering the polling places, no vehicles near, etc.
When you think about it, the whole thing is pretty bizzare, having elections for the first time in over 30 yrs in a country that was terrorized by a brutal dictatorship. People in the Soviet Union were afraid to criticize Stalin, even amongst themselves, YEARS after Stalin died. That kind of totalitarianism can immobilize the populace, even if they really want freedom.
But the Electoral College worked differently then, prior to the twelfth amendment. Each elector voted twice - for two different candidates - for President. There were 69 electors so there were 138 electoral votes cast. George Washington got 69 electoral votes so he received one vote from each elector.
The electoral process before the 12th Amendment by JAMES R WHITSON < james@presidentelect.org >
posted May 2000
As laid out originally in the Constitution, the election process was meant to be a contest of individuals not political parties. With an individual like George Washington, whose popularity cut across all groups, this system worked well enough. But during the two elections that followed, the rise of political factions produced some unexpected outcomes. As a result, the 12th Amendment, which changed the way the vice president is elected, was ratified in 1804.Today when an elector casts his ballot he lists one person as his choice for president and another as his choice for vice president. Then two separate lists are drawn up; one with all the names and votes cast for president, and another with all the names and votes cast for vice president. The person with a majority of votes on the presidential list is named president and the person with a majority of votes on the vice presidential list is named vice president. If no one receives a majority of the votes for president, then the House of Representatives chooses from the top three candidates. If no one receives a majority of the votes for vice president, then the Senate chooses from the top two candidates.
Before 1804, however, when an elector cast his ballot he listed his top two choices for president. The choices weren't ranked as "first choice" or "second choice" and no mention of vice president was made on the ballot. One list was then drawn up that included both names from every elector's ballot. The person with the majority of votes from the total numbers of electors (not the majority of the total number of electoral votes) was named president. The person with the next highest number of votes was named vice president. If two people had a majority and the same number of votes, then the House of Representatives would choose between them which would be president; the other would be vice president. If no one received a majority then the House would choose the president from the top five candidates. From the remaining four, the one with the most electoral votes would be vice president. If two or more people were tied for second on the list the Senate would choose among them the vice president.
Spain would be second.
On the other hand, we can claim terrors biggest defeat when it happens. It won't be perfect. It will never be perfect and the U.N. had better keep their mouths shut or I suspect they will lose their lease in N.Y.
The NYT can go to blazes with Al Jazera.
Good debate.
A couple of points.
1)Things probably seem worse than they are. The same worries were in force about elections in Afghanistan and it turned out OK. I also imagine Afghanistan had some extra challenges in getting their elections going compared to Iraq: lower literacy rate, less developed media and infrastructure to get the word out and people to the polls, etc.
2) I'm no expert in security but I'm confident securing discrete polling places is well within the capabilities of our forces.
3) We can count on improvised bombs and terrorists causing mischief throughout the next few years. (Heck, Israel saw bombs going of weekly and had no problems with doing an election). There is no ideal time to do this.
4) We announced the elections. You can guess that the election results will lead to all sorts of problems. But postponing the elections will lead to *certain* problems: loss of face and credibility we follow through, emboldening terrorists, emoboldening anti-American media, etc.
The elections must go on.
That being the case, how does delaying the elections convey that message? Delaying elections is a major strategic and propaganda victory for the terrorists and a major defeat for democratic reform in the country.
And how long do you delay actions? Give me your time-frame. Three months? Will the situation greatly improve in three months? Or is it more likely that a delay will encourage more violence? How about a year? Do you think you can sustain the interim government for another year without elections?
The problem is that if you delay elections too long in order to beef up the security situation and stabilize the country, you'll probably do just the opposite as people start to believe that the whole free elections proposal was a scam and is never going to happen. If you delay only a few months then you haven't really given yourself that much time to improve the security situation but you've set a precedent that elections can be delayed by car-bombings and suicide bombers. After winning that victory, the terrorist will look towards delaying elections again and again (because now they're optional and NOT sacred) with the eventual goal of cancelling them altogether.
Excellant response. I was just thinking how impossible this debate--discussion--would be with a Liberal. I would get out one sentence and they would be screaming at me, " Halliburton! Halliburton!".ha.
well, I would only add this. What we may well get out of this election, is simply an iraqi government that has the legitimacy to fight a possible coming civil war. There is some benefit to that, but I worry that their ability to put together any kind of credible iraqi security forces to actually beat them back, is suspect.
I guess what I am saying is that right now, US public support for iraq is strong enough to sustain current operations - even if we had a 60 day election delay. What I fear is that a disastrous election, leading to civil war, is going to snap that public support - which would put the rag tag post-election iraqi government on the spot bigtime to clean it up. If they can't do it, the whole iraq effort is in trouble.
Who's to say an extra 60 days waiting time will achieve anything. For all we know, January might be a better time than March as we've got so many on the run from Falluja, etc and why give them two extra months to regroup?
It's unlikely that 60 extra days will suddenly create a stronger Iraqi force - and besides, it will be US forces guarding election sites.
I just don't see any strong arguments for delaying the election.
Afghanistan's elections went on and were a success. Why wouldn't Iraq's also be?
Honorable Congressman,
Well spoken.
Oh I don't know. Might the fact that we have five times more
casualties in Iraq and thousands more Iraqis have been killed than Afganis have some bearing?
No delay, no flinching. Let's see how much the Iraqi's want to govern themselves.
and if they fail, what then? why take a risk that they will fail (it would destroy any future use of US projection of military power) - when another 6 months might help them improve.
well, if you don't think that more time will help - then that means that you don't think the situation is improving. these two positions are direct opposites - "more time won't help" & "the situation in iraq is improving". if the situation is improving, what that really means is that its improving over time - so more time will help.
There you are assuming that American journalism cares about Iraqis, a patently absurd proposition. American journalism promotes the number of American combat deaths as a way to disrespect President Bush.The trouble with promoting the story of terrorist attacks on a 1/30/05 election is that the casualties and the perpetrators would all be Iraqis. If they could blame the US for the casualties that would be one thing, but the election will be conducted under the aegis of the Iraqi Provisional Authority and the Coalition troops will get relatively little blame for any Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence concomitant to it.
And that is why, ultimately, this whole discussion is foolish for Americans to engage in - it is an Iraqi decision in the first place. Bush made the original decision in setting the date, but only the Iraqi Interim Authority could convince Bush to change it. And, IMHO, the Iraqis will come to the same conclusion as Congressman Billybob about that. The election will politically defeat the terrorists, in that any murders they commit on that day will ever after be counted as murders rather than fighting the coalition.
iraq has the potential to be much worse then the incidents in Afghanistan. The iraqi insurgency is 100 times more organized then the Afghan one. In fact, the election itself could lead to civil war in the country. if that happens, US public support for the war will drop from the low 50s, into the 30s, it will be unsustainable.
yes, you are correct, the new government will have the legitimacy to conduct the civil war and wipe them out. but make sure that they can before you look forward to that plan. so far, the iraqi police and security forces have demonstrated poor performance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.