Sunni Choices

I'm as curious as Jesse about the Sunni Arab turnout on Sunday, but I'm not so sure it makes much difference to the political issues now facing Iraqis. Obviously, higher Sunni Arab turnout is better than lower. On the other hand, the NYT reported on January 25 that the same "Sunni Arab leaders who have been the most vocal in calling for a boycott or postponement of the coming elections say they intend to get involved in politics after the vote, including taking part in writing a permanent constitution."

This is one of the reasons that a high voter turnout in the rest of the country was important: It was a powerful demonstration that the Iraqi political process has widespread support and legitimacy. The attempt to derail the election having failed, the Sunnis' remaining choices, as the community's own political leaders are aware, are to participate in Iraq's political process or be left out of it.

Tony at Across the Bay offered his usual insightful post on the NYT report, noting a parallel with the Lebanese Christian Aounists. That faction boycotted an election in the 1990s to protest Syrian occupation. Writes Tony, "They then realized that they had to join in if they were to have any influence . . ." which is what happened.

"What the Sunnis will hopefully learn," Tony adds, "is what the Lebanese have hopefully learned: your country is a consociational democracy."

Comments

[fyodor]

The attempt to derail the election having failed, the Sunnis' remaining choices, as the community's own political leaders are aware, are to participate in Iraq's political process or be left out of it.

I don't know about that. They still have the choice of trying to derail the successful creating and implementation of a new constitution. And then there's the all-important derailing of an effective security force. I'm not predicting any of this, mind you, only pointing out that political participation is hardly the only choice left for those who never wanted to participate politically in the first place. Thus the predictions of some that the insurgency won't die anytime soon. And the evident success of the election does not guarantee failure for the insurgency anymore than any election can guarantee success against armed force (didn't South Viet Nam have elections?) even though it certainly is a hopeful step. At least the insurgents know what they're up against and that the majority are not on their side.

[chthus]

Does anyone know how long the term for each elected legislative member will be? In other words, when will the Sunni-A get another shot?

I know that basically this group will meet at a convention to iron out a constitution by this summer. Then in the fall, the constitution will go up for referendum vote. If it passes, the executive branch will be voted in, in a manner described by the constitution, around the end of 2005. Will there be another election for the legislature at that point as well? Is there a term limit (say 2 years) already outlined? Or will this be defined by the constitution?

This would probably have some importance to the ability of the Sunni-A to get back in the game.

[SPD]

Does anyone know how many Iraqis registered to vote? I'm just curious to know what 60% actually constitutes in terms of real numbers.

If it is 60% of registered voters, I'd be interested in learning what kept 40% of them at home, besides the obvious. Isn't a little early for voter apathy in a country holding its first real election?

Also, how many of the 60% were expatriates with nothing to fear by coming out to cast their votes? Not trying to be cynical (or Democrat) here; but I've learned to take all optimistic assessments out of Iraq with a grain of salt.

All questions aside, I wish nothing but the best for the Iraqi people. After being harrassed by Hussein's troops for decades, then suffering through an ill-advised embargo, a U.S. invasion and two years of chaos, foreign mismanagement and oocupation, a free election is the least we as a nation could provide for the citizens of Iraq.

[chthus]

From what I've seen, 280,000 of 1.2 million ex-pats voted. Approx 90% of those that registered voted. This would make up just a small percent of overall voting assuming that it falls somewhere around 8 million total.

As for total Iraqis, I've seen 14.2 million, but have seen this listed as either registered or eligible, but don't know which it definitely is.

[chthus]

Another complication in getting a registered voter number is that registration was still open on election day at some polling places (Fallujah, Ramadi, and maybe Mosul).

[chthus]

"An estimated 14.2 million people are eligible to vote but the turnout at some 5,500 polling stations is in doubt, because of the threats of violence and boycott calls from leading Sunni politicians and clerics.

Iraq's independent election commission predicted that 57 per cent of eligible voters would turn out, despite the violence and boycott calls."
http://smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Iraq-sealed-off-on-election-eve/2005/01/29/1106850140636.html?oneclick=true

Here seems to be the more common answer for the 14.2 figure. It also shows that should that 60% stand up, the Iraqi independent election commission had a pretty good handle on what to expect.

[clarityiniowa]

The attempt to derail the election having failed, the Sunnis' remaining choices, as the community's own political leaders are aware, are to participate in Iraq's political process or be left out of it.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say "the Sunnis' remaininglegitimate choices..."

The one thing that is clear to me about yesterday, and the thing that brings me some small hope, is that the majority of Iraqis - even Kurds who, by and large, might prefer to be independent - have come to realize that this process is more likely to bring them where they finally decide they want to go than simply devolving into civil war or tribal conflict.

[thoreau]

It has been claimed that a lack of democracy in the Middle East is part of the reason for terrorist attacks like 9/11. It has been claimed that if this process continues to work out (and I freely admit that the signs are hopeful), then we will face less of a threat from terrorism.

Would it be a sign of failure in Iraq if another 19 non-Iraqi men attack the US?

[kwais]

In an earlier thread I mentioned that none of the eligible voters that I know didn't vote. I now know of two that didn't vote.

One is a Turkmen Sunni who couln't vote because she couldn't register, or she registered in the wrong place. And an Assyrian Christian who didn't vote because she was apathetic, she figured that the US was in Iraq to stay, and as long as we are here Iraq would be in good hands.

[kwais]

I am told that Sunni Arabs voted as high as 40% in cities that are not Sunni Arab dominated.

[chthus]

"It has been claimed that a lack of democracy in the Middle East is part of the reason for terrorist attacks like 9/11. It has been claimed that if this process continues to work out (and I freely admit that the signs are hopeful), then we will face less of a threat from terrorism.

Would it be a sign of failure in Iraq if another 19 non-Iraqi men attack the US?"

Firstly, Iraq is not all of the middle east. So if Iraq became democratic, but other areas in the ME weren't yet, it would seem that 19 non-Iraqis attcking the US wouldn't be a reflection of failure on an attempt to stop such by democratizing the ME. It would be like some one dying in a car crash due to lack of seatbelts, while researchers were designing seatbelts. It would be foolish to think this meant that the effort to develop seatbelts was a failure, it would merely mean that it hadn't been done soon enough. Would this mean that the attempt to develop seatbelts should be abandoned?

[Dynamist]

thoreau: If people feel some amount of self-determination they're less likely to blame (attack) foreign powers. It takes time, possibly generations, for people to believe the energy is best spent building their own lives rather than destroying enemy lives. If 19 non-Iraqis attack Westminster tomorrow, it's not a failing of the invasion of Iraq. If they attack Westminster ten years from now, for the same causes as today, that is a failing of the invasion.

In a general sense, if one is seeking a metric for failure in Iraq, I suggest anything that is not success is failure. That sounds broad, but rather than broad consider it adaptable. If we hold the goal to be reducing global terrorism, the particular form of events in Iraq or Afghanistan or Washington is secondary to counting how many people are getting blown up. If there were some saintly Gandhi-type character the Iraqis wanted as benevolent dictator, then intigating democracy is less important. But the only way someone can show their Gandhi Nature is to be free enough to choose non-violence.

As always, when we choose a time frame we presume a set of possible outcomes to the experiment.

[gaius marius]

turnout ... was a powerful demonstration that the Iraqi political process has widespread support and legitimacy.

now having watched other threads give way to spouting ridiculous disneyland triumphalism -- "what a great day for america, freedom and the iraqi people!" despite the ongoing killing and occupation -- i would simply note that the british held elections in places like egypt and iraq between without those countries ever being anything like free.

what turnout represents is the hope of the iraqis for self-determination, not the manifestation thereof. every vote can be interpreted as a condemnation of both saddam *and* the united states. we would be unwise to ignore that, imo.

[clarityiniowa]

g.m. - what turnout represents is the hope of the iraqis for self-determination, not the manifestation thereof. I agree. This is a first step at best, albeit a hopeful one.

every vote can be interpreted as a condemnation of both saddam *and* the united states

This statement is less supportable, particularly in that it begins with the word "every," and less useful in that what you mean by it depends on whose particular vote or votes are being interpreted, and who is doing the interpretation.

[gaius marius]

i agree, mr clarity -- perhaps i should instead say, "we would be best served by considering every vote...". defusing hubris -- which has become the infection that is withering american political society, imo -- is the best thing we can do.

there's nothing laudable about having to fearfully stagger through bomb craters and body parts to vote; to the contrary, it represents catastrophic failure on our part. it sickens me a bit to see idiots here shouting "wahoo!" over what is transpiring there as though something had been won.

in light of that, we'd best keep our mouths shut and do whatever we can to make right all that we have set wrong in iraq, and actually give these people the freedom we talk so much about.

[Ken Shultz]

"This is one of the reasons that a high voter turnout in the rest of the country was important: It was a powerful demonstration that the Iraqi political process has widespread support and legitimacy."

According to Zogby, one in three Iraqis wants an Islamic government.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957

[jennetic]

Wow- 66% of the country *doesn't* want an Islamic government. Fully 2/3s? That's pretty encouraging, actually.

[Ken Shultz]

"That's pretty encouraging, actually."

Wow! The ol' glass half full? I didn't think about that--but then, it didn't have anything to do with my point.

My point is that just because people voted doesn't mean they support the democratic process. Adolf Hitler came to power by way of an election--I don't think anyone interpets that voter turnout as a sign that the political process of the Weimar Republic enjoyed widespread support and legitimacy.

Got it?

[jennetic]

I'd hate to see your "half empty" on that one. Not so amazing that you didn't see it, though.

I don't recall several million Germans risking life and limb to vote in Hitler. Also, as I seem to recall, the German people stood behind him pretty well, so I'd guess that more than 1/3 voted him in. Hell, they fought to keep him.

So...what's your point? I guess I don't "get it." Are you arguing that democracy doesn't always lead to the best outcomes?

Or are you arguing that despite the risks, the suicide bombs, the mortar rounds, the Iraqis didn't really care enough about the "politcal process" to vote?

[Ken Shultz]

Among the Shiites, and others, there are those who would elect leaders and would then, just as soon, never hold another election again. Interpeting the votes of such people as support for the democratic process is a misinterpetation.

...That fact seems to offend you--I don't know why.

[jennetic]

That's some pretty dire statements. We don't know how the people voted; we don't know how things will turn out. It is pretty clear, though, that the general population of Iraqis felt, at least within the last 100 hours, that the vote was worth something.

Do you have some crystal ball that lets you know that somehow, this is the only election the Iraqis will have? Do you have any better info than the rest of us that somehow, a people who risked it all to vote two days ago will decide to give it up to yet another dictatorship? They might, but it seems there's scant evidence to think it, and perhaps a bit more to suggest that something altogether different may happen.

[Norad]

Tradesports (www.tradesports.com) offers betting on whether official voter turnout will be more or less than 8 million. As I write this the odds are slightly under 50-50 that the turnout will be under 8 million.