Why are people upset with the Iraqi Elections?

This is a very good, objectionable argument as to the illigetimacy of the recent Iraqi elections. Please take the time to read if you truly want to understand what is hard for a lot of us to explain.

This came from the Institute for Policy Studies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reading the Iraqi Elections

by Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
1 February 2005

** The millions of Iraqis who came out for the elections were voting their hopes
for an end to violence and occupation, and a better life; their hopes are not
likely to be met.

** George Bush hopes to be the major victor in this election, using it to claim
legitimacy
for his occupation of Iraq . This election does not mean that the invasion and
occupation of Iraq is legitimate -- democracy cannot be imposed at the point
of a gun.

** The election, held under military occupation and not meeting international
criteria, including those of the Carter Center , remains illegitimate;
legitimacy
is not determined by the number of people voting.

** Even the expected victory of Shi'a-led political parties is not likely to
result in the new assembly calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

** U.S. domination of Iraq 's economic, political and social life will continue
through the military occupation and the continuing control of money, the legal
system, and political patronage.

** The U.S. has a long history of using elections held under conditions of war
and occupation to legitimize its illegal wars - the January 2005 elections in
Iraq mirror the 1967 election held in South Viet Nam , also held to give
credibility
to Washington 's puppet government.

The individual Iraqis who came out to vote clearly were very brave and eager
to reclaim control of their country. They were voting for their hopes, for
secure
streets so children can go to school, for electricity and clean water, for jobs,
and mostly for an end to the U.S. occupation. The elections, however, are
unlikely
to achieve any of those goals; the violence is likely to continue, perhaps even
increase. The U.S. occupation is STILL the problem, not the solution, in Iraq
, and only bringing the U.S. troops home, not imposing elections under
continuing
occupation, will lead to an end of violence.

Millions of Iraqis participated in the election, but it is still unclear how
many. International journalists were limited to five polling stations in
Baghdad,
four of which were in Shi'a districts with expected high turnout. The
U.S.-backed
election commission in Iraq originally announced a 72% participation immediately
after the polls closed, then downscaled that to "near 60%" - actually claiming
about 57% turn-out. But those figures are all still misleading. The Washington
Post reported (two days after the vote, on page 7 of the Style section) that
the 60% figure is based on the claim that 8 million out of 14 million eligible
Iraqis turned out. But the 14 million figure itself is misleading, because it
only includes those registered Iraqis, not the 18 million actually eligible
voters.
Similarly, the claim of very high voter participation among Iraqi exiles is
misleading, since only 280,000 or so Iraqis abroad even registered, out of about
1.2 million qualified to register and vote. The participation of women, both as
candidates (imposed by the U.S.-backed electoral law) and as voters, was
significant, but key demands of Iraqi women, particularly involving economic and
social rights disproportionately denied to women, are unlikely to be met through
this electoral process.

At least in the short term, George Bush will emerge as the major winner in this
election, through the false propaganda claim that Iraqi participation and
enthusiasm for the elections somehow equals legitimacy for his continued
occupation and
the preventive war that put it in place. This is the latest effort to identify
mileposts "on the road to freedom" in Iraq - earlier ones included the " Mission
accomplished" claim, the capture of Saddam Hussein, the "transfer of
sovereignty,"
and none of them led to freedom, independence and security for Iraqis. In fact,
Bush's false claim of legitimacy continues to hold the Iraqi population and the
150,000 U.S. soldiers hostage to his agenda and occupation.

The Bush administration's goal is to increase the legitimacy of the occupation
and the broader Iraq project, including a more vigorous counter-insurgency war,
in the eyes of Americans and international public and governmental opinion.
This may lead to some European leaders, in particular, eager to rejoin the Bush
bandwagon, to use the election's "success" as the basis for challenging their
own population's continuing opposition to the U.S. occupation. The president
of the European Commission, José Manual Baroso, congratulated the Iraqi people
for their courage, and said that the election represented "European values."

It is a huge insult to the people of Iraq to claim that enthusiasm for democracy
only emerged when it was "offered" to Iraq in the form of elections imposed
under
the conditions of military occupation.

The Iraqi election was not legitimate. It was held under conditions of a
hostile
military foreign occupation. The Hague Convention of 1907, to which the U.S.
is a signatory, prohibits the occupying power from creating any permanent
changes
in the government of the occupied territory. These elections were arranged
under an electoral law and by an electoral commission installed and backed by
the occupying power. They took place in an environment so violent that voters
could not even learn the names of candidates, and the three days surrounding the
vote included a complete lock-down of the country, including shoot-to-kill
curfews in many areas, closure of the airport and borders, and closure of roads.
There were
no international monitors in the country - unlike Afghanistan (with 122
monitors)
and Palestine (with 800) during difficult elections held under occupation, Iraq
was deemed too dangerous for international election monitors. The Canadian-led
team of international election "assessors," who made an early claim that the
elections met international standards, were in fact based outside the country,
in Jordan.

The U.S.-based Carter Center, which has monitored elections around the world
for more than a decade, declined to participate in Iraq. But they did identify
key criteria for determining the legitimacy of elections, and their spokesman
noted the day before the elections that none had been met. Those criteria
included
the ability of voters to vote in a free and secure environment, the ability of
candidates to have access to voters for campaigning, a freely chosen and
independent election commission, and voters able to vote without fear or
intimidation.

The new Iraqi transitional Assembly, despite a certain majority of
Shi'a-dominated parties, will be unlikely to call for an immediate withdrawal of
U.S. troops.
Despite claims by many Shi'a leaders that they want an end to the occupation,
this "government," whose legitimacy will remain tainted by its ties to the
occupying
forces, will remain in power only with the backing of the U.S. troops. The Sunni
current interim president, Ghazi al-Yawer, one of the most critical voices of
the U.S. occupation, announced after the vote that it would be "complete
nonsense"
to call for an end to the occupation.

Despite the effort to maintain an "Iraqi face" on the troops guarding the voting
process, it was clear that, according to Newsweek magazine, "the U.S. army role
was pivotal in the election." U.S. embassy officials also told the San Francisco
Chronicle that it was important "not to read too much" into the level of
security
that made the elections possible - guarding polling places is easier than
fighting
a counter-insurgency, they said. Bush announced after the elections that "as
democracy takes hold in Iraq , America 's mission there will continue." Newly
installed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice affirmed that, " U.S. troops will
stay till Iraqis can do the job."

U.S. domination of Iraq remains unchanged with this election. The U.S.-imposed
Transitional Administrative Law, imposed by the U.S. occupation, remains the law
of the land even with the new election. Amending that law requires
super-majorities of the assembly as well as a unanimous agreement by the
presidency council, almost impossible given the range of constituencies that
must be satisfied. Chiefs of key control commissions, including Iraq's Inspector
General, the Commission on Public Integrity, the Communication and Media
Commission and others, were appointed by Bremer with five-year terms, can only
be dismissed "for cause." The Council of Judges, as well as individual judges
and prosecutors, were selected, vetted and trained by the U.S. occupation, and
are dominated by long-time U.S.-backed exiles.

The 40,000+ civilian and military "advisers," including private contractors and
U.S. government officials, seconded to Iraq 's ministries and all public
institutions will remain powerful; with the new assembly sending new staff to
these ministries, the U.S. "advisers" may hold the institutional memory.

The $16 billion of U.S. taxpayer money not spent in the reconstruction effort
(the billions paid to Halliburton, Bechtel, and others has come almost entirely
out of U.S.-appropriated Iraqi funds) as well as the $50 billion/year military
costs will become a potential slush fund for the new assembly's favored
projects.
The U.S.-backed privatization schemes imposed by former U.S. pro-consul Paul
Bremer remain in place. The current interim finance minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi,
touted by the Los Angeles Times as a potential candidate for deputy president
or prime minister, recently announced his support for the complete privatization
of Iraq 's oil industry.

A New York Times article of September 4, 1967 , is entitled "U.S. Encouraged
by Vietnam Vote : Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror." It
reads,
"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of
turnout
in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign
to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the
5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them
risked
reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen
as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of
constitutional processes in South Vietnam . . .The purpose of the voting was to
give legitimacy to the Saigon Government . . ."

 

why are people unhappy with the elections? simple. it is not a democratic process whatsoever, no matter who is elected that country is now and forever going to be under US reign.. plain and simple

 

just like japan and germany.. oh i know, they're "different"

 

And which one of you took the time to read through that? lol

 

i read it, its not that long.

I dont agree with it, obviously.

The US doesnt need to 'legitimize' its 'occupation.' The UNSC already did that.

 

What is the basis the UNSC used to 'legitimize' the occupation?

- Because there certainly weren't WMDs
- Osama Bin Laden hasn't been hanging out there

 

Did the legitimize it cuz Saddaam was a bad guy?

 

resolution 1483 handed over power to the coalition forces. That power was then dissolved last june. Since then we have been in at the behest of the iraqi government, a UN recognized government.

 

Anyone care to explain exactly what the Iraqis voted for? I mean, actual individual candidates? Slates of candidates? A leader of the whole country? Were most of the Iraqis even familiar with the candidates? etc. I've heard a lot of glittering generalities in the U.S. media about the elections but almost no details.

I've heard orders of magnitude more details about the Michael Jackson case in the U.S. news. I know more about the jurors selected for the Jackson case than candidates selected in the Iraqi election.

 

They didn't even know the candidates who they were voting for, because those candidates were in hiding for fear of their lives.

This election was a joke, but if the Iraqi's will use it as a step towards democracy and freedom, or even as a step in taking even some control over their gov't then more power to them.

We can't force democracy on anyone, and we shouldn't try. But the fact of the matter is, we have. We can't turn back time. Now, if the Iraqi's can pick this up and run with it, I say run like the wind! We need to get them on their feet ASAP, they need to be a country again.

Shaggie, to answer your question:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/election_faq.html

 

So pundits from the Center for Policy Analysis reject the election, but actual Iraqis think so highly of it they will RISK THEIR LIVES to get a ballot in the box. Hmmm.... whose opinion really decides if an election is legitimate? Its hilarious to see people scrambling to attack this election, and the sense of gloom and disappointment among the left that Iraqis supported it is unmistakeable.

Shaggie, this election is for an national assembly that will draft a constitution by August 15. After that, there will be a referendum on the constitution by October 15 and then national elections again in December.

The election also puts in place another interim government, but his time one that is democratically elected. There are also votes for local councils and for the Kurdistan National Council (which is a democratic institution which has been in place for a decade).

 

"** George Bush hopes to be the major victor in this election, using it to claim
legitimacy
for his occupation of Iraq . This election does not mean that the invasion and
occupation of Iraq is legitimate -- democracy cannot be imposed at the point
of a gun."

who cares if dubya benefits from the outcome of the elections, if the people who were willing to risk their lives were thrilled to have the opportunity? dubya's gonna be gone in a few year, their democracy, if all goes will, will carry on for much longer than that.
our own founders in the USA were willing to kill and die for democracy.

 

Yes. Let us not forget that the founders of our country were themselves "insurgents".

The Iraqi election was not legitimate. It was held under conditions of a
hostile military foreign occupation. The Hague Convention of 1907, to which the U.S.
is a signatory, prohibits the occupying power from creating any permanent
changes in the government of the occupied territory. These elections were arranged
under an electoral law and by an electoral commission installed and backed by
the occupying power.

There were no international monitors in the country - unlike Afghanistan (with 122
monitors) and Palestine (with 800) during difficult elections held under occupation, Iraq was deemed too dangerous for international election monitors.

So I'll give you guys that Iraqi's risked their lives to vote.

But I have to ask - who is counting the votes for the Iraqi election?? I honestly do not know.

 

Except the coalition forces do not count as a 'hostile military foreign occupation."

 

Someone better tell the UN that they illegally participated in an illegal election which was not legal. Because UN resolutions authorised the elections, UN personnel helped with the election process, and the resulting government will be recognised by the UN.

People here need to realise that the "illegal" story is over. The occupation has been authorised by the UN and the interim government, which consents to the occupation, is recognised as a legitimate authority. Acts of the interim government are not acts of an occupational authority.

Calling everything illegal was fun while it lasted but a new premise for automatically rejecting everything is now needed.

 

What is the difference between legal and illegal? Who decides what is legal and what isn't? Nazi Germany declared killing Jews was legal, as well as invading neighboring countries. Is that right? No. Murder and invading foriegn countries who pose no threat is never right.

What was done after the atrocities commited by the Axis powers? The UN was created and a set of international laws were created to prevent these abuses from occuring again, and if they did, then proper action could be taken. One thing we must remember is this: history is written by the victorious group.

I believe people ignore the basic failure of the Iraq election. The quality of life did not change for the Iraqis and they are still suffering greatly. War is not the answer, lovingkindness, compassion, and peace are.

Peace & Love

 

cool. i'm sure there's all kinds of iraqis who are feeling very forgiving toward saddam for testing weapons on them. that's awesome.

 

I realize I can't convince anyone into my belief's so I will just share what they are.

I do believe that the 'coalition forces' which are primarily American and British ARE hostile military foreign occupation. I believe this based on information from the first hand accounts of independant journalists and iraqi civilians on the ground. I believe this even in spite of the for profit media's embedded reporters news stories that talk about how good things are going usually accompanied with a soldier infront of a beautiful sunset, or a soldier in uniform painting a school or some happy picture along those lines.

What discredits the mainstream, or 'for profit' media to me, is the fact that the pentagon gets to decide which platoons and units to embed the reporters with, thus allowing them to paint whatever picture they want for mass perception consumtion.

But when I hear multiple iraqi citizens stories on the ground, talking about how iraq's healthcare, electrical infrastructure and general feelings of safety are all worse than under sadaam, i have to balance the two images and perceptions - thus bringing in critical thinking. Surveying the U.S. history of military occupation and the history of war in general, i conclude that this war is illegal, injust, and flat wrong going against the laws of nature - which are - lovingkindness, compassion, and peace