Reading the Elections
By Phyllis Bennis
ZNet
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 will 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 . . ."
February 02, 2005
BACK TO TOP ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■ Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified. |