Iraqi election Poll

[Balschoiw 0]

The whole election is a laughter. It has nothing to do with proclaimed freedom or safety, it´s just the US alibi to get their asses out asap. That´s what´s it meant for. Not for the people in Iraq. I mean... even if they knew whome to vote...where should they go to to vote ? They don´t know as we don´t know. It´s just a US PR hoax, nothing else. The election will change nothing in Iraq. It will only worsen things as it creates artificial fronts.

Free elections are different...very different.

[GoOB 0]

The whole election is a laughter. It has nothing to do with proclaimed freedom or safety, it´s just the US alibi to get their asses out asap. That´s what´s it meant for. Not for the people in Iraq. I mean... even if they knew whome to vote...where should they go to to vote ? They don´t know as we don´t know. It´s just a US PR hoax, nothing else. The election will change nothing in Iraq. It will only worsen things as it creates artificial fronts.

Free elections are different...very different.

Here, here! But it's democractic, and democratic things have to be great! Right?

[Colossus 2]

CNN

Quote[/b] ]Bush: Iraq election 'resounding success'

Well, I don't know about that.

Maybe for him it was, but not for them.

[theavonlady 2]

CNN

Quote[/b] ]Bush: Iraq election 'resounding success'

Well, I don't know about that.

Maybe for him it was, but not for them.

And you speak as an insider of course?

Keep up the denial.

[Homefry 0]

The whole election is a laughter. It has nothing to do with proclaimed freedom or safety, it´s just the US alibi to get their asses out asap. That´s what´s it meant for. Not for the people in Iraq. I mean... even if they knew whome to vote...where should they go to to vote ? They don´t know as we don´t know. It´s just a US PR hoax, nothing else. The election will change nothing in Iraq. It will only worsen things as it creates artificial fronts.

Free elections are different...very different.

Here, here! But it's democractic, and democratic things have to be great! Right?

Would you rather is be how it used to be? You can vote... just for Saddam, and Saddam only.... I guess it was better that way, right?

[EiZei 0]

The actual voting went better than expected but declaring the election as a whole a success at this point is really just begging to invoke murphy's law

[quicksand 0]

Let's take a scenario where 75% of the Iraqis voted.Doubtful, but this is how it would look at a idealistic best.The problem is not that 25% of Iraqis abstained it's that the 25% all come from the same Sunni community.And no mather what TBA claims this will surely deepen the division in Iraq and turn the remaining moderates Sunnis to suporting their breatheren who are fighting the US forces and a Shia dominated government.

It also makes me shiver that we are now at a stage when we could mark as a succes that only 40 Iraqis died through the course of the ellection and it did not end in total bloodshed.It's true nevertheless that it could have been alot worst,but as the investment of the Interim Government has prooven,it doesn't end here.

[Colossus 2]

CNN

Quote[/b] ]Bush: Iraq election 'resounding success'

Well, I don't know about that.

Maybe for him it was, but not for them.

And you speak as an insider of course?

Keep up the denial.

Of course I'm a insider

By the way:

List of parties in Iraq (and a bit info about them)

Some extra links for those who want that

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Would you rather is be how it used to be?  You can vote... just for Saddam, and Saddam only.... I guess it was better that way, right?

It's probably useless though to try to force democracy on a country that just isn't ready for it ,or otherwise just havn't got the political culture for it or the social and national stability.

Half the world is in name a democracy ,eperiences after colonialism in Africa for example however show that a democracy that does not exist on the bases of national unity ,with good level of public pollitical awareness ,room for free media ,or an significant intelligencia and/or public education will easily degrade in a tyranical ,dictatorial or oliarchic regime.

Political background is very important for a country if it wants to succeed in Democracy ,even many modern country's struggle with such matters there ,country's like Italy or Russia are democracy by name however the degradation of free media influence of the economical sector in politic's there are more than worrying for it's political future ,and this in itself is partly a inheritance of their political past and culture ,for country's that lack tradition of freedom ,equality ,stabilety etc are not easily changed.

Even America ,recognized banner of Democracy usually is more and more discarding it's ideals for political and economical benifit.America's press is far from free and unbiased (although most press worldwide is influenced) ,it's newest laws on security or immigration are far from the pioneering democratic spririt of the young America.Many recent scandals like Abu Graib and Guantanamoo are really severely dammaging for America's immage of "defender of the democratic world".

And then ,i would say that while the world is IMO more going away from democracy than that it's growing to it ,Iraq is probably for all factor's one of the most impossible country's to get a democracy on ,due to it's ethnic diversity ,it's political unstabilety ,it's fragile nationalism ,it's lack of free press.Thankfully atleast there is a minority of an well educated secular intilligencia ,however mostly sunni and that in itself raises problems.

The result will probably be that the Democratic Iraqi goverment as it would be will probably only survive for a limited amount of time and have to be held in life kinda artificially.

If the goverment fails to receive a broad national support ,wich it will probably be the case ,then it will be only kept alive by the security it can muster ,at this point it needs America to provide that security ,and with the numbers of insurgent's it will most probably need that support for a long time still.

That in itself raises problems.If the new iraq goverment stays largely dependant on America in the future then America's influence will be strong over it ,this will increase the impression under the normal poppulance that this goverment is then only a artificial puppet of the USA rather than a goverment based on a broad national support.

If the insurgents that are fighting the Americans continue as a seperatist movement with contuned support under groups of the poppulation then it will effectivly end up in a civil war.

The democratic goverment of Iraq can only survive if it get's support from a majority of the national poppulation and that from within all ethnicity's and religions of the poppulance ,or otherwise a goverment that represents virtually everyone.

Personally i think this can only be achieved by an extreme level of decentralization ,and would look to my own country Belgium as an example.

Due to the fact that we have quite nationalistic sub groups within our country (flemmish-nationalists and Wallonian's) that do not coperate that well with eachother ,Belgian has been forced to take upon an aproach of multiple regional sub goverment's (flemmish parlement- Walonian parlement)

This make's it easier for the 2 groups to cooexist with eachother as both are represented by their own goverment.

Similar thing's can be seen in Inthe Uk for ex. ,Scottish parliament has made it easier for Scot's to accept that they are a part of the UK ,Or Spain now where Catalonia has received a large amount of self governance the last decade ,wich severely dimminished the power and poppularity of ETA.

I would say that there is a need for iraq to have Kurdish ,Sunni and Shia sub-goverment's ,with many influence granted to this sub-goverment's rather than to a national goverment ,so that as such atleast the people get a feel that they arn't dominated from an other group within society.

[denoir 0]

Would you rather is be how it used to be?  You can vote... just for Saddam, and Saddam only.... I guess it was better that way, right?

This election has to be taken into context with the state of the country. It is about as relevant as the transfer of power last June was. On paper great, in practice at best an illusion.

Iraq has three problems: security, security and security. And that issue is completely detached from elections etc Those responsible for the violence arn't exactly going to care about the election results. A democratic election doesn't say anything about the country's future.

Hell, Iraq has previously had real multi-party elections - the last one was in 1953. Look how much it helped them - they ended up with the Baathists and in the end with Saddam Hussein.

These elections did indeed hold symbolic value: Finally, after 50+ years, they get to vote freely. And many bravely defy the dangers and use their new found rights. It's very cute as long as you look the other way when you hear that 40 people were killed at the polling places or if you start thinking about the potential political risk that comes with these elections. Then it becomes much less cute.

The big practical problem is, as has been pointed out, that some 80% of the Shiia community is off voting, while only some 25% of the Sunni are doing the same. Check quicksand's post on the last page - containing opinion poll results. It's not a pretty picture. And if this election fails to bring (very likely) any permanent solution to Iraq's problems, there will be a lot of pissed off people and as familiar, in Iraq, upset people have no problem getting AKs, RPGs and explosives.

[Thunderbird 0]

It's the total KO in Iraq, these elections don't say anything good

to me, I have a bad presentiment because the majority over there it's the people Shiite, the Shiites are populations of the same culture that Iranian, they are different from the sunni community, the sunnites are the Saoudi, Egyptians, and the majority of the countries of the ME are sunnites, if the Shiites win this elections, a civil war is likely to burst, American made an error while coming to Iraq, because that will destabilize all ME; the Saoudi logically will support zarkawi if the Shiites will win,and maybe that Saudi Arabia imply themselves in the conflict, but also other states....

I hate dictators, but do you know that mentalities are different between western world and the arab world, do you understand that people think not with the same manner? the vision of the democracy isn't seen with the same manner, which they don't share the same conviction way in the Western world that in the Arab world, excuse me of saying that, but it was much better at the time of Saddam, although it was bad, but at its time there weren't all these problems before the American came to cause while stealing Iraqi oil, there will be that the sheep and the hypocrites who will contradict me.

[Apollo 0]

It more complicated than just diffrence's bewteen Sunni and Shia on the bases of religion ,Because while the Shia are the most poppulous ,that doesn't mean they are the most wealthy or advanced in society.most probably ,the economical hart of the country will still be the Sunni pat of iraq ,and it's probably also the "braincenter" of Iraq ,not only scientificly but also politicly and millitary.because the most loyal veteran's of the former regime including officer's were sunni's ,and they have probably more experience with millitary hardware and better availibilety to weapons and ammunition. (probably before the fall of Iraq many millitary socks have been hidden underground all over the Sunni part for later use)

The implications on a national economical level could mean that The Sunni's would be forced to pay more for the New democratic Iraq while the Shia are getting most power over how these funds will be invested.

In the end ,if i would analyse the chances for a sunni sepperatist movement in iraq then i would say that they would most probably be way more powerfull that a National security force ,and that while their millitary supperiority might then better that while a seperatist movement could be easily sucsesfull given the right moment that a bid for domination over Iraq from such a movement would end up in a terrifyingly bloody civil war ,one that might as well spark the involvemet of neighbouring country's.

[Colossus 2]

Read in one of the web-newspapers that 50% of Sunni muslims

want a armed force against US to remove them from Iraq.

A bit overwhelmed don't you think, 50%?!

[ralphwiggum 6]

election is over, and i believe this could have been better served in Iraq thread.