[Marxism] NY Times third position on Iraqi elections -- time to consider postponement

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

After first urging Sistani to urge Bush to postpone the elections, the
Times -- just last week -- seemed to jump at the Sunni-Shia split as a
big opening to provide a base for the occupation.  Now they are backing
postponement again.

"For all the talk about letting the Iraqi interim authorities govern
Iraq, President Bush will have the final say in large matters, like when
to hold elections, as long as American troops are the only effective
military in the country," the Times helpfully explains. And of course,
they will still be making the decisions after the elections.  This
statement itself completely exposes the claim that these elections have
anything to do with democracy of any kind -- including bourgeois
democracy.  The elections are an instrument of the rule of an occupying
power over the nation that is supposed to obediently participate in them
and be properly inspired for the purposes of the US media.

I wonder if the Times' sense that things are getting to tangled has
anything to do with the offer by the mostly Sunni
Association of Muslim Scholars to drop its call for boycott if the US
sets a timetable for withdrawal of troops, an offer that was dismissed
out of hand by the State Department. The "timetable for withdrawal" is a
plank in the Shia election platform, and the proposal seems like an
offer for a bloc with the Shia leaders around this either before or
after the election.  You can be certain that the Times is a lot more
worried about the Shia and Sunni uniting against Washington than they
are about divisions or "hatred" among them.

I assume that I don't have to explain on this list why demands from the
occupied nation for a "timetable for withdrawal" do not in any way
contradict our duty to demand the immediate, unconditional withdrawal of
all occupation troops from the country.

 Another charming point in the editorial:"If Iraq is going to survive as
a nation, it has to create a government in which the majority rules - in
this case, that means the Shiites." Note the Times' ingrained and
taken-for-granted assumption that when there are two groups in a
country, one must rule and the other must be subject -- although their
"rights" and "influence" must be guaranteed if the rulers are wise.
That's democracy!

And in the United States, democracy means that the white people must
rule.  Thanks for the tip, New York Times!
Fred Feldman


January 12, 2005
EDITORIAL
Facing Facts About Iraq's Election

When the United States was debating whether to invade Iraq, there was
one outcome that everyone agreed had to be avoided at all costs: a civil
war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims that would create instability
throughout the Middle East and give terrorists a new, ungoverned region
that they could use as a base of operations. The coming elections - long
touted as the beginning of a new, democratic Iraq - are looking more and
more like the beginning of that worst-case scenario.

It's time to talk about postponing the elections.

.

If Iraq is going to survive as a nation, it has to create a government
in which the majority rules - in this case, that means the Shiites - but
the minorities are guaranteed protection of their basic rights and
enough of a voice to influence important decisions. The Kurds, non-Arab
Sunnis who live in the northeastern part of the country, seem to believe
that the elections will bring them what they most want: relative
autonomy to conduct their own affairs as part of an Iraqi federation.
But the Sunni Arabs, who make up about 20 percent of the population,
have grown increasingly estranged. The largest mainstream Sunni party
has withdrawn from the current interim government, and just about all of
the country's leading Sunni Arab politicians now call either for
postponing the elections or boycotting them. Given the violence in Sunni
areas, even voters who wish to take part may hesitate to turn out. In
some places, the polls may not open at all.

A postponement - which would have to be for a fixed period of only two
or three months - would not solve all the safety problems. But it would
be a sign to the Sunni Arabs that their concerns were being taken into
consideration. That in itself could go a long way toward reassuring them
that the Shiite majority was not planning to trample on their rights.
The interim government should convene an emergency meeting of top
leaders from all major Iraqi communities to come up with a revised
election timetable and procedures that would optimize the ability of
minority groups to get proper representation. The Sunni leaders, in
return, would have to promise to take part in the elections that
followed.

Worrying about whether the Sunnis will be included in the government
does not mean sympathizing with their baser resentments. Under Saddam
Hussein, the Sunni minority reaped almost all of the good things Iraq
had to offer while trampling on the rights of the Shiites and Kurds.
Those days are over, and the Sunnis simply have to accept the fact that
they will never again enjoy their old enormous share of the pie. But if
Iraq is to start moving beyond its long history of communal hostility,
the Shiites need to demonstrate that they will not treat the Sunnis the
way the Sunnis treated them.


.

To understand what's happening in Iraq, imagine the mind-set of the
Sunnis - not the loathsome terrorists who shoot election workers and
kill civilians with car bombs and mines, but the average people,
including middle-class men and women whose lives have been ruined since
the invasion.

The United States and its allies made a great many mistakes in dealing
with the Sunnis. On the top of the list would be the early decision to
disband the Iraqi military and a decree, later reversed, that banned
tens of thousands of teachers, doctors and other professionals who had
belonged to Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from government employment -
including many people who had joined the party perfunctorily to keep out
of trouble.

Since then, the Sunnis have discovered that the American Army - which
many regarded as all-powerful - has not protected them from either the
criminals or the terrorists who have been operating throughout their
region since the overthrow of the Hussein regime. Forced to huddle in
their homes to avoid kidnappers or suicide bombers, they have had plenty
of time to contemplate the fact that the Americans have also not
delivered on their vow to improve infrastructure and provide reliable
power and water service. More recently, Sunni civilians have borne the
brunt of American counterinsurgency drives like the one in Falluja,
which have left residential areas devastated and thousands homeless.

Much of this could have been avoided if the American invasion had been
conducted more wisely, but it is the reality now, and the American
occupiers can't fix it. A democratically elected government might be
able to build up an effective Iraqi security force and win the war
against the guerrillas, whose attacks are making everyday life
impossible in the Sunni provinces. But it would have to be a government
that included all factions.

A broad range of Sunni leaders, including some of the most moderate and
pro-Western, are pleading for a postponement of the elections. They have
good reason to fear that as matters now stand, many of their people will
be unwilling or unable to take part. Last week the top American ground
commander in Iraq said that large areas of four largely Sunni provinces,
including Baghdad, are currently too insecure for people to vote. Prime
Minister Ayad Allawi admitted yesterday there would be at least
"pockets" of the country where voting would be too dangerous.

If the elections wind up taking place under current conditions, the new
government could wind up with little or no Sunni representation when the
new constitution was prepared. The winners of the elections, who will
inevitably be Shiites, could, of course, appoint Sunni representatives.
But the next Iraqi constitution is bound to include provisions that will
make the Sunnis unhappy, and the people agreeing to those deals need to
have the legitimacy that comes with being elected.

It seems clear in retrospect that the elections should have been set up
along district or provincial lines, an approach that would have ensured
minority representation. It would also have allowed the interim
government to carry on with voting in the Shiite and Kurdish areas this
month while postponing it in the four violence-racked provinces, giving
Sunnis the prospect of electing their share of legislators later. The
United Nations organizers are mainly at fault here. They made their
decisions under heavy pressure from the Bush administration to come up
with a simple system that could be in place by Jan. 30. But it now
appears that it would have been better to accept the flaws inherent in a
regional approach in order to get solid protection for the Sunnis.


.

For all the talk about letting the Iraqi interim authorities govern
Iraq, President Bush will have the final say in large matters, like when
to hold elections, as long as American troops are the only effective
military in the country. He has always insisted on holding to the Jan.
30 date. Mr. Bush keeps saying that things will go well once the voting
actually starts. We certainly hope he's right, but we doubt that he is
as optimistic about the outcome as he appears to be in public.

Many Americans - and many Iraqis - worry that if the elections were
postponed, the terrorists would feel empowered by having won. That might
indeed be the case for the next few months. But that outcome would be
far outweighed by the danger that would come from a civil war, with the
Sunni territory becoming a no man's land where terrorists could operate
at will. Others argue that civil war is probably inevitable one way or
another, and that we may as well get the voting over with. That kind of
pessimism may be warranted. But given the horrific possibilities, we
should make every effort to avoid that end. A delay in the voting seems
to offer at least a ray of hope, and it pushes Iraq in the direction it
desperately needs to go: toward a democracy in which all religious and
ethnic groups have a stake.

Mr. Bush does not need to call for a postponement of elections himself.
He simply needs to take the pressure off the Iraqi authorities, and let
them know they have the power to make whatever decision is best for
their country. Some members of the interim government, including people
close to Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, have shown some interest in putting
off the voting if there is a chance of winning more Sunni participation,
and others are said to be leaning that way in private.

The run-up to the election is taking place at a time when there's
speculation about whether President Bush intends to use the arrival of a
new, elected government as an occasion to declare victory and begin
pulling out American troops. If such an idea is lurking in even the most
remote corner of Mr. Bush's mind, he should at least do everything
within his power - including welcoming a postponement - to prevent those
elections from being something more than just the starting gun for a
civil war.












_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism