Posted on 10/08/2005 2:36:25 PM PDT by jmc1969
NAJAF, Iraq, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has told his closest followers not to run in December elections or support any candidates, aides said, suggesting no party stands to win his backing.
That could spell difficulties for the parties in the already much criticised government coalition, who profited in January's poll from a wide perception that they had Sistani's blessing.
Sistani rarely speaks in public but sources in his office said that while he wants the millions who look to him for spiritual guidance to take part in the election, he wants to maintain the distance from party politics that he has long sought -- in contrast to fellow Shi'ite clerics in Iran.
A statement from Sistani's office said any official of his clerical organisation who runs on a party list or openly supports candidates will "lose his status as a representative".
"Sayyid Sistani bans his representatives from nominating themselves in the next election after they proposed to run," said the statement.
The full impact may not be clear for some time but Sistani's apparent rejection of endorsing any party may raise concerns among some politicians after he discreetly let it be known he backed them in the election in January to an interim parliament that is dominated by the Shi'ite-led United Iraqi Alliance.
The Dawa party of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, both Islamist in outlook, dominate the coalition.
Though his precise views are rarely clear, Sistani appears to have let it be known through various followers that he is unhappy with their performance -- a dismay that is echoed among many of the long-oppressed Shi'ite poor, who complain that they have yet to see economic benefits from majority rule.
The beneficiaries at the election, expected on Dec. 15 under a constitution expected to be ratified at a referendum on Saturday, could be other Shi'ite movements and leaders, now in opposition, such as nationalist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and secular former prime minister Iyad Allawi.
Jaafari's government has also proved unpopular with his Kurdish allies and, especially, with once dominant Sunni Arabs, who accuse it of condoning Shi'ite militia death squads.
That's good news, not bad as Reuters is reporting it to be.
Right a step away from a Shiite Islamist state. Of course Reuters writes it up as bad news.
"Grand Ayatollah Sistani has always made it clear that he wants to maintain a separation of Mosque and State! Therefore it is not inconsistent for him to say that his "closest followers", i.e., clerics, not get involved in politics!"
That's exactly what it says in the report ("while he wants the millions who look to him for spiritual guidance to take part in the election, he wants to maintain the distance from party politics that he has long sought"). At least read it before disagreeing with what you think it will say!
I'll be more specific. You've correctly noted from the piece he wants to maintain the distance from party politics that he has long sought. They still don't state that there is a principle of separation of mosque and state, a very positive concept to be applied to Iraq, different from the usual strong pessimism which is routinely reported.
Leaving out the principle behind the behavior ... I am reminded of the American mainstream ( = leftwing) press when they report on Supreme Court decisions and fail to make the distinction between a policy preference and a Constitutional judgement, thus obfuscating the very principle which is so very important to American Conservatism's judicial program. Writing as if it doesn't even exist.
As a general principle, I disagree with your implication that any media outlet should be obliged to taylor their stories towards readers who can't be bothered to read the whole article and who haven't informed themselves sufficiently to understand the implications.
In this case, I'm not sure you could come up with a more objective report. The news is clearly a blow to the parties which did well in the January election and benefitted from Sistani's patronage, which is stated. Beyond that, what will happen in such an evolving political environment is very much speculation. There are scenarios which could be good and scenarios which could be bad. This pretty much gives straight facts, I don't feel the need for it to have any spin added.
While the article may be fine the stupid Reuters headline is very misleading.
"Iraq's Sistani distances himself from elections" makes it sound like he doesn't support the elections. A better, more accurate title would be something like "Iraq's Sistani distances himself from politics".
The way the headline is written is misleading and it's not surprising that it's misleading in a direction that is negative towards the Coalition's goals in Iraq. This is but one example of the kind of crap Reuters always pulls.
thump thump thump ....who is walking up the ladder....hmmmm do I see Allawi.
Newspapers understand this. An anecdote: The Boston Globe ombudsman was responsive to my complaints regarding their headline/story about US soldiers rooting out insurgent weapons hidden in mosques. Their facts beneath the fold were not wrong, but the headline and lead-in gave the impression, supposedly unintentionally, that the soldiers were attacking mosques as an act of intimidation. I reminded the newspaper that the weapons actually confiscated from the mosque basement could otherwise have been used to kill Americans.
Your reading my mind.
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.