« The Argument We Can't Make | Main | Meta-Meta-Meta- »
Force and Fraud
Ever since I did the reporting for this piece I've been waiting for someone in the public conversation to start taking note of the fact that the Iraqi elections are going to be essentially unmonitored and therefore open to all sorts of problems. Today via Spencer Ackerman I see that The Financial Times is on the case. Let me quote myself: "The resulting process will be open to fraud in areas where the interim government is strong and to violence and intimidation where it is weak." What do we do when it turns out that Iraq lacks a Hamid Karzai figure -- someone sufficiently popular that everyone accepts the legitimacy of the result despite questions about the integrity of the vote? (For that matter, a similar problem may arise with the Afghan parliamentary elections, but I haven't been following that situation for the past few months so there may have been recent improvements I've missed). Especially since this is a closed-list system so a few percentage points more or less can make a big difference even if it doesn't change the ordinal ranking of the parties. Right now, Iraq is divided between groups that are "in the political process" and groups that are out of it. But if the "in" groups start fighting, then what?
December 27, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834575f6669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Force and Fraud:
» Iraqi Elections, American Results from Foreign Affairs Blog
Mathew Yglesias has a post on the legitimacy of the Iraqi elections wherein he mentions an interesting quotation of his: “The resulting process will be open to fraud in areas where the interim government is strong and to violence and intimidati... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 27, 2004 7:31:33 PM
» Around The 'Sphere from The Moderate Voice
Due to travel, we a bit less here than usual so we're making up for it with a special edition of Around the 'Sphere with a few more links than usual. Links include ALL VIEWPOINTS and do not necessarily [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 28, 2004 3:16:59 AM
Comments
What Matthew doesn't tell us is what exactly the UN elections team should be doing but isn't. Kofi Annan, after all, seems to think that things are going OK, other than security (http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-12-16-voa49.cfm).
Will there be international monitors? Who knows? I suppose there will be fewer than in Ukraine, but of course, the monitors for yesterday's Ukrainian election were organized in about 2 weeks, so the fact that we don't know all the arrangements today doesn't tell us anything about whether or not there will be monitors at all.
Posted by: Al | Dec 27, 2004 4:08:13 PM
What do we do when it turns out that Iraq lacks a Hamid Karzai figure -- someone sufficiently popular that everyone accepts the legitimacy of the result despite questions about the integrity of the vote?
We sink further into the quagmire as the country slips into open civil war, that's what happens.
Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Dec 27, 2004 4:24:02 PM
I think this is all mooted by the fact that the Iraqi government, democratic or not, will be sealed inside the green zone. Outside the green zone, there will be a gangocracy: rule by roving packs of teenage punks with machine guns.
Posted by: Josh Yelon | Dec 27, 2004 4:58:29 PM
1. The UN will have a handful of monitors "monitoring" this fiasco from Amman. That is not monitoring, it is legitimizing a process which is not legitimate in any of its aspects. If Koffe Annan had any courage at all he would refuse to be part of such a charade, but he is too much of a coward to really stand up to the mighty U.S.A., especially after the spanking he got for finally daring to admit the invasion of Iraq was illegal.
2. Fraud? The whole thing is just one more fraudulent, incompetent piece of an enterprise that was fraudulent and incompetent from its conception.
3. It doesn't matter who "wins", there will be hell to pay either way.
Posted by: Shirin | Dec 27, 2004 5:18:51 PM
Josh, you are right about that.
But then this election is no more about creating a legitimate, effective, democratically elected Iraqi government than the so-called "handover of sovereignty" was about sovereignty.
Posted by: Shirin | Dec 27, 2004 5:21:22 PM
This isn't strictly a government being elected; it is a national assembly tasked with debating and approving a new constitution, elections to follow after approval of the constitution, nominally late 2005.
Election fraudsters would need to have a long-term view to benefit much from fraud. (Am I missing something obvious here?)
Posted by: Bill Arnold | Dec 27, 2004 5:23:01 PM
Josh, that's exactly why there is no hope.
If the combined might of the US Armed Forces can't put down the insurgency, then what hope in hell does a new Iraqi government have?
The "pro-Iraqi" forces we've trained so far are riddled with spies, informers, sabateurs, deserters. They're going to do better than us?
They can't, it's not possible, which means there is no exit strategy.
Posted by: grytpype | Dec 27, 2004 5:54:03 PM
Bill, you are right, it is not electing a government per se. However, the "assembly" will, in addition to ostensibly writing the constitution - no doubt under the tight control of American "advisors" - also "elect" yet another temporary PM, President, etc. For this reason the stakes are in fact very high for everyone, including, of course, the Bush administration, and especially the neocons. Of course they have been doing everything they can think of to make sure Allawi and the rest of the collaborators will dominate the assembly.
Posted by: Shirin | Dec 27, 2004 6:09:36 PM
Shirin, the new assembly and so on is just another bunch of stuff the US Armed Forces will have to protect.
Posted by: grytpype | Dec 27, 2004 6:29:45 PM
grytpyp, the Americans are not protecting anything in Iraq except their own asses, and the asses of their assets. The fiction that they are protecting Iraqis is just that - fiction.
Posted by: Shirin | Dec 27, 2004 6:50:04 PM
Who cares about the elections in Iraq? The Muslim world has no interest in democratic representative government because it requires at least a modicum of tolerance for the views of others if they don't jibe with your own. This isn't ever going to be the case in any society in which the adherence to Islam (or any other conservative religion you care to name) is at the root of all personal and societal relationships.
Posted by: Jeff I | Dec 27, 2004 6:55:07 PM
Jeff, Happy Holidays to you!
Posted by: grytpype | Dec 27, 2004 6:56:56 PM
"This isn't strictly a government being elected; it is a national assembly tasked with debating and approving a new constitution, elections to follow after approval of the constitution, nominally late 2005.
Election fraudsters would need to have a long-term view to benefit much from fraud. (Am I missing something obvious here?)"
Posted by: Bill Arnold
One or two things, IMHO. First, if things allow Allawi to continue in office, that'll make it easier for Bush & Co to continue in Iraq. Second, getting a group which will largely favor what Bush & Co wants will result in a constitution which requires that. Having influence over the writing of the foundational law for a country gives a lot of opportunity to lock in goodies.
Posted by: Barry | Dec 27, 2004 6:59:57 PM
>(Am I missing something obvious here?)
Yes, that having control over the new constitution will be worth the trouble to commit fraud.
Posted by: grytpype | Dec 27, 2004 7:06:32 PM
The Muslim world has no interest in democratic representative government because it requires at least a modicum of tolerance for the views of others if they don't jibe with your own. This isn't ever going to be the case in any society in which the adherence to Islam (or any other conservative religion you care to name) is at the root of all personal and societal relationships.
I think Indonesians, Malaysians and Turks - while hardly living in perfect societies - would disagree with you a bit.
Having said that, those countries and their relative levels of development have nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq right now.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Dec 27, 2004 8:38:04 PM
hey jeff: your statement could just as easily apply to the Republicans in this country as to "the Muslim world". the Republicans have no modicum of tolerance for the views of 47% of Americans.
Posted by: scorpio | Dec 27, 2004 8:49:25 PM
Since this is an election to pick a Constitutional Convention, the US will ensure 'success' by guaranteeing Sunni seats. We call this quotas. Apparently a good idea, according to Bush, where there is injustice to be righted.
What would a successful outcome in Iraq look like? A Shiite government allied with Iran, more friendly to terrorists, and inimical to US interests than before the first Bush attacked?
Pull out now. We have no further interest in the occupation of Iraq.
Posted by: epistemology | Dec 27, 2004 9:32:58 PM
Matthew,
Actually, it strikes me that the closed list system is the best way to minimize the impact of fraud and intimidation. Differences of a few percentage points are not likely to make a huge difference in the outcome.
Seats to the 275 member assembly will be assigned proportionally based on the percentage of the vote garnered by the 100+ parties, alliances or individuals who have submitted lists. The larger alliances have submitted full lists of 275 rank-ordered candidates. If, for example, Sistani's United Iraqi Alliance were to get 60% of the vote, then the top 165 candidates on that list will receive seats in the assembly. If election fraud were to push the alliances total down to 55%, they would receive 151 seats. So even a fairly significant 5 point difference will not effect the major figures at the tops of these lists.
It could, it is true, have an impact on whether the Alliance gets a voting majority of the in the assembly. I'm not sure how crucial this is. It would make a difference only if all of the other parties and alliances could be expected to form an anti-Alliance coalition. But that seems extremely unlikely - many of the other lists have Shiite candidates. No other list is likely even to come close to the Alliance list, so the opposition will be fragmented. And the Alliance itself is not all Shiite, and not strongly unified. Presumably, they have agreed on some sort of post-election strategy, and having a majority would enable them to implement it. But Sistani had to exert a great deal of effort to hold the alliance together as the deadline for submitting a list approached.
On the other hand, even if fraud and intimidation pushed their seats below 50%, surely they will pick up some allies from other groups winning seats.
The assembly is charged with drafting a constitution. But the constitution has to be approved by a nationwide referendum, which places severe constraints on the ability of a bare majority to ram through their prefered constitution.
One encounters frequent assertions to the effect that the only thing the assembly is to do is draft a constitution. But that's not true - it will also form a new government. It's first act will be to choose three of its members two serve as the new president and deputy presidents of Iraq. This presidency council will appoint a prime minister and other government ministers.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Dec 27, 2004 10:38:17 PM
Jeff's remarks are typical of the (willfully?) uninformed, closed-minded, and - dare I say it? - intolerant American who has learned all he knows about Islam and Muslims from the superificial misinformation (and disinformation?) promulgated by "experts" whose knowledge and understanding of their subject is only as broad, as deep, and as accurate as it needs to be to confirm their prejudices.
Posted by: Shirin | Dec 27, 2004 11:45:48 PM
think Indonesians, Malaysians and Turks - while hardly living in perfect societies - would disagree with you a bit.
Having said that, those countries and their relative levels of development have nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq right now.
Posted by: SoCalJustice
Furthermore, Indonesian, Malaysian and Turkish societal relations are not rooted exclusively in Islam. In fact, there are sizeable minorities in all three countries that practice other religions or have no religion at all. That cannot be said of a single country in the Middle East. Most important, just because you vote doesn't mean you're a democracy. That's certainly true of Indonesia and Malaysia. Turkey so badly wants to be "European," that you will eventually (had better) see a melting away of Islam in the nation if it wants to join the EU.
Islam, like all conservative religions, is antithetical to open society. Democracy and capitalism were able to flourish only after "the Church" ceased to be the center of society.
What we may actually be seeing is the death throes of Islam. Truly intelligent people are never religious. Religion (or at least true belief) is nothing but a crutch for people who have problems dealing with the world in a rational manner. It's a vestige of primitivism that existed before science helped explain the natural world. Politics, sociology, and psychology help explain the intellectual aspects of it.
Posted by: Jeff I | Dec 28, 2004 11:28:54 AM
The size of non muslim minorities is much smaller in Turkey than in Syria and Egypte
Posted by: c | Dec 28, 2004 12:56:58 PM
The size of non muslim minorities is much smaller in Turkey than in Syria and Egypte
Posted by: O
True. But the number of already Westernized and secularized Turks is much greater than the non-Muslim minorities in those nations. For example, work-a-day life in Istambul or Ankara do not come to a halt in the middle of the day for prayers.
The current nominally Islamic government is trying to walk this line between the full embrace of social modernity (which means, for all intents and purposes, removing religion as the organizing base for society) and continuing to give religion a place at the political table.
Again, if they really want to become a member of the EU, they will have to further limit the role of "traditional" Islam in Turkey.
Posted by: Jeff I | Dec 28, 2004 2:01:41 PM
"there are sizeable minorities in all three countries that practice other religions or have no religion at all. That cannot be said of a single country in the Middle East."
More Arab and Islam bashing nonsense from the uninformed, closed-minded, and intolerant Jeff.
Lebanon has a significant and very prominent Christian population consisting of many different sects. Christians have always worshipped freely, and taken a very active roll in all aspects of Lebanese society and public life.
Iraq has always had a very significant and extremely varied Christian population which has historically been well integrated into the general population and has played important rolls in public life and government. Iraq is among several predominantly Muslim Middle Eastern countries that welcomed Armenian refugees during the Turkish genocide. In some cases Muslim Iraqi families protected Armenian refugees from the ruling Turks at great risk to themselves. There are also cases of Muslim Iraqi families giving monetary and other assistance to refugees. The Armenians very quickly became completely integrated into Iraqi society. Iraq also has a number of other religious minorities, such as Yezidis, who are well integrated into society as a whole. (Unfortunately, since "liberation" American style has invited in and empowered and emboldened extremist "Islamist" elements, Christians for the first time ever in Iraq find themselves in jeopardy - as do the majority of Muslims as well as secular people.)
Syria has a Christian population that is well integrated into its society and institutions. In fact, tens of thousands of Iraqi Christians who have fled Bush's "liberation" have fled to Syria.
Some of Palestine's most prominent activists, and notorious fighters have been and are Christians.
Do I need to go on, or is it clear now that Jeff hasn't got the slightest clue what he is talking about?
Posted by: Shirin | Dec 28, 2004 2:04:33 PM
All these Christian minority populations that Shirin keeps going on about exist at the whims of the current regimes so long as they keep their heads down and make no political waves. This is especially true of the rapidly declining Christian minority in Lebanon now that Syria and Hezballoh have been in charge of the country since Israel's evacuation of the "security zone" in the south.
Iraq has always had a very significant and extremely varied Christian population which has historically been well integrated into the general population and has played important rolls in public life and government.
Oh, yes. Just like Israeli Arabs.
This may be true. But Iraq's government until the fall of Saddam had been essentially secular for over thirty years. That won't be the case once once the U.S. pulls out. The nation will then become some sort of Islamic theocracy closely resembling Iran.
Posted by: Jeff I | Dec 28, 2004 2:21:15 PM
"All these Christian minority populations that Shirin keeps going on about exist at the whims of the current regimes so long as they keep their heads down and make no political waves."
Lucky you! Evidently you do not realize that in a dictatorial/authoritarian regime everyone "exists at the whims of the current regime so long as they keep their heads down and make no political waves" - that is a fundamental part of living in a dictatorial regime., and in most of the Middle East is no more true of Christians than it is of any other citizen.
Oh - and by the way, Christians have been and ARE politically active, and even make the occasional wave in Middle Eastern countries. In fact, I would suggest that compared to their numbers in the population, they tend to make a disproportionate number of waves.
To name just one major wave-making Christian, Michel Aflaq formed the Ba`th party in Syria, along with another Christian. There have been and are at any given time many minor wave-making Christians in various Arab countries.
"Oh, yes. Just like Israeli Arabs."
No, not even remotely like so-called "Israeli Arabs", who do not have the same rights and freedoms, and who are treated like aliens in their own land.
...once once the U.S. pulls out [Iraq] will then become some sort of Islamic theocracy closely resembling Iran.
Obviously your expertise on Iraqi politics in general and Iraqi Shi`i politics in particular comes from the same source as your expertise on Islam.
You are right about one thing, though. The Bush administration's Iraq adventure will leave Iraq changed forever - and not for the better.
Posted by: Shirin | Dec 28, 2004 4:47:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
