Posted on 02/14/2005 3:26:15 PM PST by Pokey78
AN ELECTION that was not supposed to happen because the so-called resistance in Iraq — and its sympathisers in the West — did not want it has produced results that the doomsters did not expect. First, the massive boycott of the polls did not take place. Last month almost two thirds of Iraqi voters voted in the first free and fair election in their history. Now, the final results show that the doomsters were wrong a second time. There was no green tidal wave of radical Shiism that was supposed to transform Iraq into a carbon copy of the Khomeinist republic in Iran. The United Iraqi Alliance, a list endorsed by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the primus inter pares of the Shia clerics, did win 48 per cent of the votes. But this is far short of the two-third majority that the Shia could have won had they all voted for the list. In any case, the UIA list was not a confessional ticket and had Arab Sunnis, Kurds, and Christians standing as candidates. It is an alliance of half a dozen parties and groups, including secularists. The supposed total exclusion of the Arab Sunnis from the National Assembly did not happen, either. Arab Sunnis account for some 15 per cent of the Iraqi population and are a majority in four out of 18 provinces. In three of those provinces the voter turnout was below 30 per cent, and in one, Anbar, dropped to 2 per cent. But only half of the Arab Sunnis live in those provinces. The other half, in Baghdad and other major cities, voted in larger numbers. Based on their demographic strength, the Arab Sunnis should have 42 seats in the 275-seat transitional National Assembly. The final results show that the new assembly will have 49 Arab Sunnis sitting in it. Of these 40 were elected on the Shia-led and the Kurdish lists, plus the list headed by Iyad Allawi, the interim Prime Minister. Five were elected on a list led by Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawer, the Arab Sunni interim President, while four more won within smaller alliances. If we add the Kurds, who are also Sunni Muslims, at least 110 members of the assembly are Sunnis. But the politics of new Iraq is not about sectarian differences. Religious and ethnic identities were used in this election, but this was in an absence of political organisations that could not take shape under Saddam Hussein’s despotic regimes. The Shia-led and Kurdish lists, the two main winners, could theoretically form a coalition and control the transition and the writing of a new constitution. But we are not dealing with monolithic groups. The two lists are alliances that include many different ideologies — nationalist, liberal, Islamist, far Left, socialist and social democrat. My instinct is that the new assembly will be organised on the basis of political programmes rather than sectarian and/or ethnic identities with Arab nationalist, Islamists and liberals-conservatives blocs forming. But those who have known the new emerging Iraqi leadership for years know that almost all its members are united in their rejection of any new form of despotism. Having been liberated from Saddamism, few Iraqis would want to return to a state of virtual servitude, whether in the name of God or political ideology. Saddam nostalgics, having failed in all their predictions of doom, are playing another tune. They claim that post-election Iraq will either become an Iranian-style Islamic republic or will be plunged into civil war. Some despotic Arab regimes, already shaking with fear that democracy in Iraq may spread to their neck of the wood, have lost no time in saying this. Al-Ahram, the daily newspaper of the Egyptian Government, greeted the election results as the signal for civil war, claiming that holding elections is the principal cause of the current violence in Iraq. The Saudi media has brought back the Shia bogeyman as an argument against the holding of genuine elections in the region. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, however, see the Khomeinist regime in Tehran not as a model but as a warning. The Iraqi electorate has rejected not only Khomeinism but all other brands of extremism: the combined share of the votes for the most radical groups was puny. The party of Muqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand anti-American Shia cleric who was supposed to represent the angry Arab street, won just two seats. One thing is sure: Iraq has been set on the road to democracy. This is going to be a bumpy road with many zigzags. But, provided the US-led coalition does not lose its nerve, but stays committed until the new Iraq can defend itself against its domestic and foreign foes, the Iraqi experience could inspire democratic change in other Muslim countries in the Middle East. It would not be easy for Syria to orchestrate another fake election in Lebanon in May. The Khomeinists in Iran would find it hard to present another fixed election in June as a genuine reflection of the popular will. The Egyptians would have a hard time producing another 99.99 per cent majority for President Hosni Mubarak, or his son Gamal, in yet another single-candidate election next year. The Saudis would not be able to indefinitely postpone demands for at least half of the seats in the Majlis, their parliament, to go to elected members. In Libya Colonel Gaddafi might find it harder to appoint his son as prime minister with a mere acclamation from his henchmen. The Arab despots and their friends in the West make a meal of the cliché that democracy cannot be imposed by force. But what happened in Iraq was not imposing democracy by force. The US-led alliance used force to remove impediments to democracy. The people of Iraq became the co-liberators of their country, first by not opposing the US-led coalition and then by risking their lives to set their nation on a new path in the face of vicious terrorism. It is time to see what is happening in Iraq on its own merits, not in the context of an irrational hatred of the United States and George W. Bush. Like it or not, President Bush has got one thing right: give any nation a chance to choose democracy and it will.
Yep. His fault, our fault, our allies fault, the troops fault, the Iraqi's fault...
But it's not the MSM's fault, the Liberals' fault saving a few, the U.N.'s fault, those countries that stabbed us in the back's fault, the anti-war protestor's fault, Hollywood's fault, the terrorists fault, the dictator's fault... LOL
I have faith. Faith that the critics are wrong, and we are right. The Iraqi people are going to be a good example to the entire world. Might help a few to remember what people so long ago fought and died to establish for US in this country.
A point that most seem to miss.
And that there were more then a few bumps on that road too. For some reason there is very little in depth study of the history of the US as it was being born.
We had a Revolution.
We wrote the Constitution.
Washington was elected.
Lewis and Clark.
Fought the War of 1812.
Fought the Civil War.
That is the way it is taught. You could be forgiven for thinking that things just flowed naturally. Of course it didn't. I think that sometimes the only thing that made us persist was the knowledge that everyone was waiting for us to fail.
Iraq now finds it's self in much the same position that we did. May their road be a little less harsh.
Because I tell ya, there is absolutely nothing that beats being able to thumb your nose at those who say, "You'll never make it."
Oh yeah.
That reward is largely what drives me to keep forward when people say it can't be done. They said peace in the middle east couldn't happen. They stated they were savages incapable of establishing a free government of the people, for the people, by the people. Surprise.
I find the critics of all sides to be great motivators.
Also, anyone interested in history should be observing Iraq (or Afganistan). It's as close to witnessing our nation's birth as we can come. Adds a layer of understanding to the facts of our nation's establishment. I'm finding the whole process fascinating as it unfolds.
nicely said.
doesn't anyone remember the armed rebellions we had in the early years?
Kudos!
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
..... The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, however, see the Khomeinist regime in Tehran not as a model but as a warning. The Iraqi electorate has rejected not only Khomeinism but all other brands of extremism: the combined share of the votes for the most radical groups was puny. The party of Muqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand anti-American Shia cleric who was supposed to represent the angry Arab street, won just two seats.One thing is sure: Iraq has been set on the road to democracy. This is going to be a bumpy road with many zigzags. But, provided the US-led coalition does not lose its nerve, but stays committed until the new Iraq can defend itself against its domestic and foreign foes, the Iraqi experience could inspire democratic change in other Muslim countries in the Middle East.
Good news bump/ping!
They never teach that we seriously considered a Monarchy and offered the crown to three different people either.
If Washington had had natural born kids our history might have been very different. And on such small hinges swing the doors of history.
Khatami must succumb to the powers of the hot blond.
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.
