Listening to PRI on KPCC today, they started discussing the upcoming Iraqi elections, and my buddy Juan Cole comes on (audio file).
Listen to the gist of his comment: “The Iraqi people are being asked to vote for party lists or coalition lists…but they most often don’t know which politicians are running. I think it’s a little bit absurd to call that an election.”
Mr. Cole, please take a look at this:
It’s a party ‘ticket’, one of the original paper ballots used up to the 19th Century here in the United States. Voters would drop the ‘ticket’ into the ballot box, and choosing a ticket was that way one voted.
I’ll skip over the history in the urban East Coast, where political machines like Tammany used ties with immigrant groups to induce them to vote for candidates whose names they couldn’t read, and simply suggest that the ‘blanket’ or ‘Australian’ ballot – one that listed all the candidates for a party and allowed the voter to select one – wasn’t implemented in the US until very late in the 19th Century.
…I could recommend some history books for the Professor, if he’d like.
And yes, I’m aware that we do a better job of it now, and that it’s the 21st Century. But might we allow that democracy – like every other thing that grows – might have a start in Iraq that will look much like our own?
_And yes, I’m aware that we do a better job of it now, and that it’s the 21st Century. But might we allow that democracy – like every other thing that grows – might have a start in Iraq that will look much like our own?_
Are you perhaps also aware that the Iraqis might not be judging their American-administered elections by the standards we suffered through in 1820? They apparently have TV, the Internets, and ‘radio.’ You might recall that in 1820 we (the USA) still had slavery and property-based voting rights in a bunch of states. We then had a civil war, we gave the vote to blacks, and then even women. And here we are in 2005. So standards from 1820, or 1860, or even Plunkitt’s Tammany Hall of 1905, might just seem really inadequate.
And not knowing who you’re voting for is not, in any drug-induced fantasy, good for democracy.
Just like prior to our elections when the Dem Party put out their PDF on how to claim fraud even where none existed, this is the Left’s talking point for Iraq’s elections. Look for the MSM, Democrat Senators and Moonbats to claim that the Iraq elections are mired in fraud, and not legitmate. It is just another bash on our President and Country.
stickler –
You know, stickler, you’re right. You’ve convinced me. If they can’t do it as well as we do it here in California, forget the whole thing.
I mean, why shouldn;t they compress two hundred years of political history and learning into a month?
Better yet, if they can get it down to 120 minutes, we could make a movie about it, which is where it could seem that you get your sense of historic process…
A.L.
#1: stickler: And not knowing who you’re voting for is not, in any drug-induced fantasy, good for democracy.”
Actually it can be, it can constitute a useful reform.
Australian voting numbers all candidates in order of preference (number one being your top preference). In the federal lower house, with small electoral districts and short lists of candidates, that’s never been a problem. But in the federal upper house, the Senate, making it easier for citizens to run for office gradually led to the several-feet-long, name-crowded ballot papers we have today, and filling in every preference became a time-consuming hassle that led to increased voter errors and invalid votes.
Some people (like me) really do want to know who they’re voting for, all the way down to the last hundred-and-umpty-whatevereth preference that will never need to be counted, but most don’t.
The solution was optional list voting. You can fill in every preference, which some do, or you can just tick a box at the top of the page, and your preferences will be distributed in a pre-set way by the party of your choice. That way, you have no need to research all the parties. You trust your own party to make a reasonable decision for you. (You assume they will not put a vile party with a harmless-sounding name high on their list of preferences, if only to avoid scandal.) That’s all most people want.
There’s all kinds of ways to vote, with different good points. There’s no one way with all the good points and no bad points. There are always trade-offs between simplicity and control and so on, and picking more control at the cost of more disputed or dubious votes is not always the right choice.
stickler: “And not knowing who you’re voting for is not, in any drug-induced fantasy, good for democracy.”
I myself am not currently in a drug-induced fantasy, and yet I see your point. That’s why I didn’t vote for John Kerry, because I’ve still got no idea who the hell that guy was.
But this will be the first free election in an Arab nation in modern times, so one might expect something less than perfect on the first go. If you heard the president’s speech today (instead of searching the parade route for rocks to pack into snowballs) you know that we are planning to sponsor LOTS of democratic elections in LOTS of countries, so everybody will get plenty of chances to practice up.
Furthermore, this is not so different from a lot of European parliamentary-style voting, where the focus is on parties and not candidates. I agree somewhat with David Blue’s point – our own system focuses way too much on personalities instead of policies.
To answer your question, he is not a professor of American history.
_But this will be the first free election in an Arab nation in modern times, so one might expect something less than perfect on the first go. If you heard the president’s speech today (instead of searching the parade route for rocks to pack into snowballs) you know that we are planning to sponsor LOTS of democratic elections in LOTS of countries, so everybody will get plenty of chances to practice up._
Holy crap. Something less than perfect? Almost no Sunni representation, and they used to run the country. Candidates anonymous to avoid assassination. Yeah, that’s going to be less than perfect, all right. Good thing there are no massive arms dumps or army veterans we’ve not thought to round up. Oh. Right.
And we’re going to sponsor LOTS of democratic elections in LOTS of countries? At bayonet point? Care to share with us the list of countries which will be so blessed? Any insight into how they’ll respond?
Perhaps inside every Arab is an American waiting to come out. Or, maybe we’ll have to destroy the village in order to save it. Is that light at the end of the tunnel?
And we’re going to sponsor LOTS of democratic elections in LOTS of countries?
Yeah. So you’d better pace yourself on the indignation, because if you have an aneurysm on the very first one you’re going to miss all the fun.
Lets us also keep in mind we are talking of something like 100 winners, i forget the number but its large .. that will be the team to draw up the contitution.
They are not actually electing rulers yet, but choosing representavives for the consitutional convention.
In America, did we have that level of democracy yet ?
no
Compared to America’s start they are way ahead.
Raymond:
Did we, in 1789, exclude all the Virginians? Or all the slaveholders? If we had, do you think that might have been problematic?
The elections might just turn out to be the cure-all that we’re seeking in Iraq, the event that lets freedom ring and makes the IEDs stop.
But remember: that was also supposed to happen with the death of Saddam’s sons; with the capture of Saddam; with the handover of power in August, and so on. Non-leftists like Brent Scowcroft have been murmuring that civil war is inevitable once the elections take place. Do you really think they’re wrong, or do you think an Iraqi civil war is no problem?
stickler:
The elections may not be perfect. But they’re surely a lot less imperfect than any Iraqi’s were likely to get under Saddam Hussein or his sons, or under the sort of regime Mussab al Zaqarwi would like installed.
In 1789 the US did not exclude the Virginians etc.
It did, however, exclude the royalists, as they had left for (or been expelled to) Canada.
The Sunni are excluded partly by the intensity of insurgency in the area, due to a relatively high level of Sunni support for or acquiesence in the insurgency; and partly due to Sunni parties and clans political manouvers.
On the margins but decisively important due to their capacity for violance, there are the Baathist dreams of a restoration of the Baath dictatorship, and the jihadi combination of nihilism and vague hopes of a ‘new Taliban’ type theocracy.
But beyond these, a good many Sunni, including the clan elites, appear to hope that they can rescue their preeminent political status either through insurgency, or by pleading insurgency as a reason to sidestep elections ‘temporarily’ and eventually install a ‘coalition’ with the Sunni enjoying their rightful position: back on top.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Postpone the elections now and the Shia and the Kurds will (understandably) be furious.
As these are, nominally, elections for a Constitutional Convention rather than an executive, legislative, or ruling assembly, the Sunni will still have the chance to participate in shaping the new state.
IF their more reactionary elements can bring themselves/be brought to accept that the days of their dominance are done and over.
If not, then civil war it will be, as the Shia and the Kurds will never again bare their throats to Sunni masters.
As for ‘making the IED’s stop’: they may NEVER, EVER stop.
A miniscule number of terrorists, supported by a tiny support network, can carry on a campaign for decades. See the IRA, ETA, Red Brigades, DRAF etc in Europe: some were active over more than a century.
Few people proposed that the European states should, as a sensible response, promptly dissolve their governments in despair.
Also, if terror continues on a large enough level, recent discusions on the lines of “American sponsored Iraqi death squads, good thing or bad?” are going to look rather fatuous.
Given sufficient provocation the Iraqi’s WILL set up death squads, and the US will be able to do NOTHING to stop them.
Ultimately the decisions are in Iraqi hands.
_”Perhaps inside every Arab is an American waiting to come out.”_
Lord I hope not. There’s quite enough yanks as things are 🙂
_”Or, maybe we’ll have to destroy the village in order to save it. Is that light at the end of the tunnel?”_
I don’t think so. The ‘light’ is if we don’t destroy entire states to save us.
No, stickler, we excluded all the women. And all the blacks. And all the non-property-holders.
Indeed, as far as the Constitutional Convention was concerned, we excluded everyone since the Convention was manned by unelected representatives of the states, and had a mandate merely to recommend improvements to the Articles of Confederation, not to scrap them and start over.
That was bad, but what grew out of it was good. The standard isn’t perfection, the standard is the alternative. Which, in this case, is no elections at all.
I’m inclined to thing that elections despite Sunni apathy are a good thing: here’s what happens to you if you don’t play ball according to democratic rules. Next time, maybe you should vote, eh?
And I’d point out that party lists are common in Europe; in Germany you get two votes, one for your rep and one for a party. Extra seats in the Bundestag are allocated according to the percentage that your party gets in the “second vote.” I suppose that it’s a little different in principle, in that the list is probably publicly available somewhere, but nobody is actually going to read it.
I’d also point out that, in electing the American president, we are also electing thousands of nameless political appointees, who are charged with creating and executing policy; that is a pretty close analogue to a party list.
“Did we, in 1789, exclude all the Virginians? Or all the slaveholders? If we had, do you think that might have been problematic?”
No, but we did in 1864. And all Carolinians, Georgians, Floridians, Alabamans, Mississippians, Arkansasans, Texans, Tennesseeans, Louisianians…
Was Lincoln’s (brief) second term illigitimate?
Y’know, stickler. Being a “stickler for details” requires familiarity with, well, _details_.
“And we’re going to sponsor LOTS of democratic elections in LOTS of countries? At bayonet point?”
80% of Iraqis polled in Baghdad – in the midst of the Sunni Triangle – want the elections to go forward as planned and are planning to vote. Every time Iraqis have been polled since we deposed Saddam – by NGOs, Gallup, ABC News, the BBC, to name a few – they have wanted some form of democracy by a large margin, and a very small minority have wanted a theocracy. Local elections in the south have voted for secular professionals respected in the community, not clerics. Women have voted and been elected.
Maybe you want to catch up on the news before indulging in tired cliches.
Do you also think that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians camped out in Kiev’s main square day after day in the cold because they were duped by the CIA?
“The elections might just turn out to be the cure-all that we’re seeking in Iraq, the event that lets freedom ring and makes the IEDs stop. But remember: that was also supposed to happen with the death of Saddam’s sons; with the capture of Saddam; with the handover of power in August, and so on.”
I don’t recall anyone saying that everything would be perfect once each of those things happened. The US occupation has proceeded based on lessons learned from previous nation-building attempts: first you stabilize the civil institutions, like the banking system and the judiciary – done. Then you set up a temporary governing body – done. Then you hold preliminary elections to develop the final form of government, making sure all factions and groups are represented – Jan 30th. Then you hold elections – ?. Then you hold them again and see if a peaceful transfer of power takes place – ?.
Iraq is partway through the process. As has been pointed out, our own government took several years to form after the War of Independence ended. The Iraqis can’t just adopt our results, they have to acquire the mindset of self-government as well. Someone released from a long prison term doesn’t know how to be free just by sitting through an orientation, he has to relearn how to make his own decisions and engage in the transactions of free society we take for granted. This takes time and practice.
Money stat from the survey: “Despite the efforts of the terrorists, Iraqis remain committed to casting their vote on election day,” said Lorne Craner, president of IRI. “We are also encouraged by the polls’ indications that more than 50 percent of those Iraqis who live in the Sunni areas and nearly 50 percent of Iraq’s Sunni population are likely or somewhat likely to vote.”
http://www.iri.org/1-20-05-IraqiElection.asp
Will Cole and his ilk be satisfied if Sunni voter turnout exceeds the turnout in California (46.6% voting age population turnout rate), New York (50%), and DC (50.7%)?
Do you also think that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians camped out in Kiev’s main square day after day in the cold because they were duped by the CIA?
BTW, the example of eastern Europe and the former SSRs ought to be enormously encouraging to us now. Who would have thought that democracy would have done so well in only ten years, planted in that rocky soil? Not the sour faces, who told us that ex-Communists don’t understand or want “bourgeois democracy”. Or freedom, either. You’ll be missing Brezhnev in no time, they told us. Brezhnev knew how to control those people, just as Saddam supposedly knew how to control the Arabs and keep them from all killing each other.
Even today, the nay-sayers would immediately point to Putinism, to Retro-Stalinist sentiments and some little petty tyrannies, and insist that all the tremendous positive accomplishments are nothing but an illusion because of those blemishes. And ten years from now they will be eagerly noting every instance of violence between Sunni and Shi’ite, every misstep of Iraqi democracy, and bawling at the top of their lungs that it’s all lies and fraud.
So is it simplification to say that we have a confrontation between people who still believe in progress and fatalist-nihilists who insist that the world must be as awful as possible – at least so long as they are not allowed to run it themselves?
With around 7,000 candidates running, this seems like a practical approach for this election. Each party publishes a newspaper to familiarize readers with its positions and candidates. Iraqi’s only have to read around 120 newspapers . . ..
>>>”Did we, in 1789, exclude all the Virginians? Or all the slaveholders? If we had, do you think that might have been problematic?”
>>No, but we did in 1864. And all Carolinians, Georgians, Floridians, Alabamans, Mississippians, Arkansasans, Texans, Tennesseeans, Louisianians…
As I understand it, they excluded themselves. It’s called “secession.”
I don’t think any sane person is against a democratic future for Iraq. The question is whether this is the time to hold the elections, i.e. will having elections now increase security and stability in Iraq or decrease it?
As for fostering democracy around the world, forgive the cynicism but it seems to be a selective effort. Where is the pressure on Saudi Arabia to democratize? On Pakistan? On Egypt? Democratic Turkey refused to participate in our invasion of Iraq; perhaps a democratic Pakistan would have done the same _vis-a-vis_ Afghanistan. As Donald Rumsfeld says, “Democracy is untidy.”
“The question is whether this is the time to hold the elections, i.e. will having elections now increase security and stability in Iraq or decrease it?”
The question is whether this is the time to give equal rights, i.e. will giving blacks equal rights now increase security and stability in the south or decrease it? — anonymous southerner during the 60’s
You do not wait for the hold outs to get with the program when you know the program is right. You pull them kicking and screaming along with you until they finally realise the future is better with them changing not the status quo.
“As I understand it, they excluded themselves. It’s called “secession.””
And what would you call an intentional boycott? For that matter, im sure not every southerner was in favor of secession. How many were disinfranchised?
“I don’t think any sane person is against a democratic future for Iraq.”
Thats debateable.
“The question is whether this is the time to hold the elections, i.e. will having elections now increase security and stability in Iraq or decrease it? ”
And its worthy of conversation. However:
A. its not our decision, there is an interim constitution aproved by the UN and the Iraqi interim government to consider,
B. There is no reason to believe the situation will improve in any arbitrary length of time. As they say there is no time like the present. I have seen no evidence that waiting will improve security.
C. This is a single election. As we know democracy is a process.
“As for fostering democracy around the world, forgive the cynicism but it seems to be a selective effort. Where is the pressure on Saudi Arabia to democratize? On Pakistan? On Egypt? ”
Saudi Arabia has begun their first municipal elections in their history, including female voters to some degree, Mushariff has been pressured to resign his military commission to continue as political leader, and you leave out a lot of places where democratic pressure _has_ worked (Palestinians). Its not a selective effort, its a pragmatic one. With limited resources we do what we can. THis is a war of ideas, and as in any war you avoid fighting all of your ‘enemies’ at the same time. The brilliance of the Iraq scenario is that a democratic Iraq will be an incredibly powerful influence on democratic reform throughout the middle east. How often were elections discussed on Al Jazeera 3 years ago? Ever? Now it is the topic of daily conversation throught the ME. That is a revolution in itself.
“Democratic Turkey refused to participate in our invasion of Iraq; perhaps a democratic Pakistan would have done the same vis-a-vis Afghanistan. As Donald Rumsfeld says, “Democracy is untidy.”
Sounds remarkably like you _are_ arguing against democracy. The point is, democratic ME nations dont have to be pro-US. Its enough that they are peaceful and progressive (like Turkey, as you say), as democratic nations always seem to evolve towards.
tomi: “As for fostering democracy around the world, forgive the cynicism but it seems to be a selective effort.”
Yes, it is a selective effort. The seige of Vickburg was a selective effort. Invading Omaha Beach was a selective effort. Thank God for selective efforts, or nothing would ever get done.
Since we’re on the topic of democracy, here’s a little Lysander Spooner for everyone:
“The secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is a secret band of robbers and murderers. Open despotism is better than this. The single despot stands out in the face of all men, and says: I am the State: My will is law: I am your master: I take the responsibility of my acts: The only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword: If any one denies my right, let him try conclusions with me.
But a secret government is little less than a government of assassins. Under it, a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they have struck, and perhaps not then. He may guess, beforehand, as to some of his immediate neighbors. But he really knows nothing. The man to whom he would most naturally fly for protection, may prove an enemy, when the time of trial comes.
This is the kind of government we have; and it is the only one we are likely to have, until men are ready to say: We will consent to no Constitution, except such an one as we are neither ashamed nor afraid to sign; and we will authorize no government to do anything in our name which we are not willing to be personally responsible for.”
Glen, kudos
The malignant blood stained left always posit the demand that renders to the basics as this “If we cant free all peoples everywhere, then we cannot free any people anywhere”.
Its absurd, but it comes from a kneejerk reactionary oposition to any use of american power unless its at the direction of a fellow leftist.
The idea that we should be selective isnt what really chafes them after all, but when de do so because of the additional beniftis to America, the very country thay hate.
And that, boiled down, is the posit that action can never have merit unless it has no additional benift.
But even that would not have merit in their eyes, you think we get credit from the left when we sent an aircraft carrier to aid the tsunami disaster ?
Exactly. we got sneers, expecially for not doing so in a manner that the feckless and useless UN would get all the credit.
Its 24/7 ankle biting, all the time.
America can do no right with the Right is in charge, no matter the action or inaction, its all about the lefts quest for power and outside of that there is nothing else.
Its that simple.
if you have an aneurysm on the very first one
Second, actually, though I agree with the medical caution. One wonders what stickler thought of the elections in Afghanistan. The media and political class seem to have dropped the entire country into the memory hole as soon as elections were held there; perhaps they’ll do the same with Iraq. (If the latest rumors are true, they can occupy themselves instead with retreading the “Quagmire!” articles and speeches, and talking solemnly about the “brutal Syrian springtime”. 😉
The point about secession is apt, the Sunni establishment, specially those drawn from
Baathist/ Dulaimi & Muntafik ranks, operates
very much like the Confederate front group
in the 1860s & 70s. Or more to the point,
the White Citizen’s Councils. Bedford Forrest,
the confederate commander turned insurgent
leader, (the Klan) The respectible political
elders (the corruption focused Southern Redeemers.
which validate the former’s strategy.
Mark Buehner: “Sounds remarkably like you are arguing against democracy. The point is, democratic ME nations dont have to be pro-US. Its enough that they are peaceful and progressive (like Turkey, as you say), as democratic nations always seem to evolve towards.”
Actually, I’m not. I’m arguing the rather cynical view that we are unlikely to tolerate a government in Baghdad that (a) won’t let us keep some bases in the country and (b) nationalizes the oil industry. I believe that our presence in Iraq is based on strategic and economic rather than idealistic concerns. That’s what I meant by a “selective effort.” And I believe that when Rumsfeld says “Democracy is untidy,” he is expressing a heartfelt distaste which I do not share.
A nice anti-climactic election and a smooth transition to a peaceful government and a unified country would be wonderful. In the current climate it’s unlikely, though, especially if there is minimal Sunni participation in this election. I’ve heard all the “gotta break eggs to make an omelet” rhetoric, but the bottom line is that a civil war in Iraq is a huge price to pay for the transition to democracy, and we should make every effort to avoid one.
This is not a situation where motives alone make the difference, by the way; screwing up the election could actually DELAY the transition to peace and democracy in Iraq, delay it by many years. I’m not saying don’t do it; I’m saying do it right, unlike so many other aspects of this adventure.
In 1863, while the Civil War was still ongoing, America re-elected Abraham Lincoln. The entire south, being at war with the north at the time, was disenfranchised. Therefore, the re-election of Lincoln was illegitimate.
We need a do-over.
As to well-run elections, I suppose it wouldn’t hurt if we sent the good folks from Washington (the state) and Wisconsin over to Iraq to teach them how to do it right…
Er, tomi? I don’t know about the bases, but you do realize that Iraq’s oil industry was nationalized a long time ago, and therefore it’s a little late for us to “not tolerate a government that will nationalize the oil industry”?
T.J.,
The ballot in America is not secret.
The votes are.
The purpose of this is to reduce the likelyhood of coerced votes – i.e. vote the right way or we kill you.
–==–
Spooner was a utopian.
However if you can point to some place where his principles were effectively put into action (It has been at least 100 years hasn’t it?) I’d certainly be interested in working examples.
–==–
As to secret lists – in a parlimentary system even with open lists you do not know who you are voting for except for the top of the ticket. The further down you go the more dependant on the percent of the vote a particular party gets.
–==–
Voting for a party rather than a person does not seem to be a big impediment. Except to utopians.
tomi,
In case you hadn’t noticed the civil war is already on.
The question now is: do we let it stop the vote.
Of course if you wish to side with the Z-man (democracy and voting is wrong for Iraq and any moslem country) I will understand.
I will not respect you in the morning.
But I will understand.