Are they still using purple ink, or have the election authorities finally realized that turpentine or nail polish remover allows people to vote early and vote often?
Elections?!!! YAY!!!! Elections solve everything! remind me again how Hitler came to power? Oh, yeah, elections. And the current holocaust revisionist in Iran? elections. How about the favorite bugbear of the right - Chavez? A coup? YAY!
I'm sure that this profound question shattered his entire reality. Post a disclaimer next time you have a similar epiphany.
then we'll be stuck in the same/worse situation we're in now, only the war effort will have been in vain.
I don't believe Sunnis + Secular Shia will have as many representatives as the other shia parties. The overall balance in Iraqi elections will still favor the shia parties operating under the United Iraqi Alliance, with SCIRI the most popular and best organized among them. The Kurds will align themselves with whoever promises them the greatest autonomy. In this regard, they will have problems with sunni parties, as well as Sadrists among the shias, since both those groups are advocates of a strong central government. The best bet for the Kurds would be to work with SCIRI/Hakim. They will get what they need, from a group that can deliver, while they won't get lost in trying to get more than they should.
sorry.... i'm a bit high and i thought about the question. yes, there could be alot more democracies in the middle east, other than iraq, in the next ten years. i hope for that. do i think it will happen??? not really
waiting for the first response saying i should've thought harder, or sober-er. and my answer is, you'd probably be right.
There are 3 factors underpinning the turnout in Iraqi elections, none of which ultimately have anything positive for the agenda of the Bush administration. First. The Iraqis want to a permanent Iraqi government established, so that the foreign troops leave the country. That is the number one demand of the Iraqi people right now. Second. There is a rivalry between shias and sunnis and that rivalry this time has made each side try to bring their followers to the polls. Neither of them, nor their followers, are at all positively inclined towards the US. The ones that are pro-American are basically without any followers to encourage them to vote. Third. It is the role of Iran. Iran has played a very important role trying to make sure the Iraqis have an independent say in these elections, preventing the elections to become a formality meant merely to validate American plans. Without Iran's support, these elections would be a flop.
I should have known about the greatness of Iran. These elections would not have taken place if not for the Americans.
Are you kidding? (No, of course you're not kidding.) Reality is that a significant majority of Iraqis and the provisional government both want us out, we've lost over 2,000 soldiers, and we have no plan to get out. But perception right now is that yesterday went off really well, so we can declare victory and go home -- but we won't, not because we can't, but because BushCo doesn't want to leave. The US will have a military presence in Iraq for the rest of your life whether the country is politically "stable" or not. Which it likely won't be, anyway. Welcome to the new Balkans.
I don't see anybody here bashing the elections. If Sunni turnout was as high as reported, then that's great that so many people want to participate in a democratic process. The one big question that nobody's asking, though, is why these people are voting now. Have they embraced democracy and will accept the results regardless of whether or not they won, or once they learn that they are still in the minority in the parliament, will they reject democracy as failing them? That's the most important issue for the next year or so, perhaps even more important than the election results themselves. Somebody's going to have lost yesterday, and that group is likely to be really pissed about it.
A summary of a political science book on emerging democracies and peace... http://www.slate.com/id/2132506/nav/tap2/ low literacy? In thought Iraq was pretty good at schooling? Well, anyway, 1 outta 5 is sstill pretty low. Anyway, its very simpleminded to think that elections and democracy solve everything. I'd move to the oldest dictatorship in the world, and enjoy every minute on the Riviera.
you need to remove your head from your arse.....Iran doesn't want a REAL democracy on it's door step.....the Iranian people might start getting ideas of their own....
Kaplan's analysis is very good, as usual - I would recommend that everyone click on that link and read the whole piece. However, he leaves out something important here: I think it's true that if Iraq were an ordinary emerging democracy, it would have "basket case" written all over it. All the ingredients for a collapse are there. However, in the Iraqi case there are two very big factors that don't come into play in most emerging democracies: A. The US military and B. The US taxpayer. Most developing country governments don't have the luxury of having the best military in the world protecting them. US forces have been unable to succesfully stamp out insurgency or maintain order throughout the country. But, they have been able head off any direct challenge to the existence and authority of the central government. This is crucial - it's the biggest reason that elections in Iraq have gotten progressively more successful over the past year. Furthermore, thanks to the US taxpayer, at least in principle the US has an almost unlimited ability to buy support for the new government - which includes being able to buy off those who may feel that they are losers in the democratic game. This is not an option for most developing countries. For example, under ordinary cirucmstances, one would expect that the struggling Iraqi democracy would likely be severely hampered by factional disputes over access to oil revenue. But, since Iraq's total yearly oil revenues are a fraction of what the US has spent in Iraq, it shouldn't be that hard for the US to compensate those who feel left out when the oil wealth is divvied up. Again, the key word is "in principle." Point being, it doesn't make much sense to treat Iraq's prospects as if it were an ordinary developing country with an ordinary struggling democracy - because most developing countries in that situation don't have access to the services of the world's best military, or access to a large portion of the US federal budget. Unfortunately, incompetence, delusion, and corruption on the part of the Bush administration have ensured that those two huge assets have so far been employed in a very sub-optimal manner- and now it's pretty late in the game. The US military is feeling the strain of long-term occuptaion, Iraqi views of the US presence are worsening, and the US taxpayer is getting tired of pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq. So we won't be able to keep the process on life support too much longer.
Excellent points NGV. Very few places have been able to have the attention and "help" of the USA the way Iraq currently does. Whether Bush's "help" is good, or perhaps more similar to someone from NAMBLA "helping" a young boy learn about the confusing changes in their body.... You're right. They have the opportunity. We've come close to raising a basketcase though. And I doubt the newly ambitious leaders of Iraqi factions will be able to be "bought off" with cash. It seems to me that they want power - after living their lives under the culture of Saddam, a thirst for democracy or wealth is far less likely than the urge to have the power to tell people what to do. People are a product of their environment and subliminal cultural values. I don't think these leaders are as simple to buy off as an american congressman is.
No. By putting its propaganda machinary, its money, its organizations in Iraq, all behind an effort to "get out the vote" in each of these elections. If instead Iran wanted to make these elections a flop, it could do so by calling for the Iraqis to boycott the elections. And such a drive by Iran would have a major influence on the credibility and participation in these elections.
You really come off as a moron. I am quite pleased that the elections occured, and that there appears to be heavy participation with little violence. There is more reason for optimism today that there is a chance for some sort of secure Iraq in the future than there was yesterday. Does that warrant your style of arrogant chest thumping? Of course not. Does this mean that Iran will have less influence over Iraq? Of course not. Does this mean an end to violence? Optimisticly, it may lessen Iraqi on Iraqi violence, and that would be a major step. If the Sunnis end up getting crapped on after heavy participation, look for continued conflict. Finally, leave the "democracy is on the march" propaganda in Archer's forum. Self determiniation is a great thing, but they have that to a great degree in Iran, which I do not believe is our model, and there is no reason to think that a similar set up won't be the "democracy" that we end up with in Iraq. I am happy with the early result and lack of violence from yesterday. Now, let's take a step back and see how the Iraqis handle the formation of a government based on the voting.
Me?? A Moron? I thought I was yellow-carded and banished for calling people names like that. If I was yellow carded and banned for such name calling, is it only right that YOU should be yellow carded and banned as well? Or are the rules different for you? Does it warrant my "chest thumping?" Well, for those on here who think everything is going to hell, maybe, just maybe, it does. Because for them it's ALL bad. Not saying YOU are like them, but that you find me a "moron" certainly gives you one thing in common with them. Hmmm..."Democracy on the march PROPAGANDA?" So, in other words you don't BELIEVE that Democracy is making progress in Iraq? Is that what you think? Hmmm...maybe you belong to the group I mentioned...even though you seem to be denying itat the same time? So, to paraphrase Kerry: are you for "Democracy on the March", after your were against it? Or is it the other way around? I am sure someone as non-moronic as you can certainly explain it. I look forward to your exegesis eagerly.
Well, let's say your comprehension skills are a bit off. Saying someone is "coming off as a moron" based on a particular argument they have made is far different then calling someone "a moron." It's that damn "nuance" thing again Karl. And, btw, I have never called for anyone, including you, to be given a yelow or disciplined in any way. I don't scold people with pm's. But, if it makes you feel better, rant away my friend.
This is great news. Now that a couple of days have passed, and things still seem to be running relatively smoothly, we can all breath a sigh of relief. BTW, my friend in Iraq sent this link to me--it discusses the work he is doing there. (Not him specifically--he just took a new job there as director of one of these provisional reconstruction teams. I don't think he even knows which one yet--his previous contracting job was in Kurdistan, but although he'd like to go back that isn't where the priority is). http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051219/19iraq.b.htm Anyway, just before he left we had talked a little about what he was doing. His sense of things was that there is a real operational shift in how we are going about doing things there. This is a new approach in Iraq.