January 26, 2005
Bush's Other Election
On Sunday, President Bush will hold his Iraq election over the misgivings of just about everyone from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Iraqi President Gazi al-Yawer.
If you’re not sure who the candidates are, you’re not alone. I just saw an Iraqi Sunni on CNN say he was going to write in George Michael, the singer, because he knows absolutely nothing about the newly returned expatriates who are running for office in his country.
But as a Sunni, that guy's screwed anyhow. The smart money is on Shiite Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri).
On a side note, I can't believe the Muslim world isn't more thankful for the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of US military casualties President Bush expended to create an Islamic revolutionary government in Iraq. Go figure.
Anyhow, in a preview of things to come, and despite a two day extension, very few eligible Iraqi expatriates have signed up to vote. Fewer than one-in-ten, by most counts.
There's also the issue of campaign financing. The two main parties, the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance and PM Allawi's Iraqi List coalition, are rolling in dough, but no one knows where it's coming from. And since the guys running for office are also the guys responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws, no one is trying very hard to find out.
At the UN, Kofi Annan says, "As far as we are concerned, all the technical preparations are ready." Note the careful phrasing. Because President Bush has ignored all calls to secure Iraq before the election, the UN only has 25 election experts in the country. And their only task is to help set up the procedures - not to manage, coordinate, or even observe. If the election results are challenged (bet on it), we're not going to see the same peaceful acceptance of the result that we saw in Afghanistan.
Here's how I predict the election will work out - check me on it: Turnout will be mediocre. The results will be contested. Chaos and street fighting will ensue. The current interim government will remain in power for the duration of the "emergency". Eventually, some kind of power sharing will be hammered out between Allawi and the Shiites, a couple token Sunnis will be added at the insistence of the Bush administration (probably the one's who are already in the interim government), and the Kurds will just wait the whole thing out in Kurdistan, knowing that eventually the "new" Iraqi government will offer them some kind of deal.
In other words, I predict that when the dust settles, and despite the actual election results, all the major players in the interim government will still be there and the security situation will be about what it is now. This will be a replay of last summer when the Iraqi Governing Council renamed itself "the interim government".
Long-term, I predict a Shiite dominated theocracy based on Sharia law.
I showed you mine, now you show me yours.
Turnout will be mediocre.I’d qualify that: Shia turnout will be just fine; Kurd turnout will be good in cities, poor in rural area; Sunni turnout will be atrocious. The result? An overrepresentation of the already-majority Shia.
By trying to make the legislature less American and more European, we opened ourselves up to this disaster. We should have created a first-past-the-post system like we have in the US and UK, where each electoral district gets one rep regardless of turnout. With proportional representation and ‘lists’, a boycott really can deligitimize elections.
Long-term, I predict a Shiite dominated theocracy based on Sharia law.
In the South maybe, but the Sunnis, both Arab and Kurd, will never stand for this. Check Lebanon: even though Shia Hezbollah is the strongest force socially and militarily in the country, it’s never tried to take over Sunni or Christian areas. Civil war is certainly possible; and a federal system might be the best solution, where each region gets to police itself, but I’d be surprised to see one group foist not only its rule but its morals on the others.
Interesting side note: I just read today that Iraq was formed from three sensible Ottoman provinces, named for their capitals of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra. The 86-year experiment of combining them might fall back onto those lines.
Posted by: Chops at January 26, 2005 02:54 PMI predict that Allawi will be installed and supported by US. He will gradually reduce civil liberties and the power of any legislative body under guise of security. I predict the US will support this on the grounds that ‘every government has the right to defend itself from terrorism’. I predict we’ll be back in 30 years to remove him from power.
Posted by: justin at January 26, 2005 04:22 PM“Because President Bush has ignored all calls to secure Iraq before the election, the UN only has 25 election experts in the country.” That is an interesting way to put it. So those coalition troops are not trying to secure the country and just ignoring calls by the UN?
You know it is true. Last week the Green Bay Packers ignored my calls to beat the Vikings.
As for election predictions, I made mine in this very blog on November 30, when people were still saying that the elections would be postponed. So far, so good.
I won’t repeat here. They are at http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/001857.html
Posted by: Jack at January 26, 2005 05:07 PMOff topic, but Bush related. I am tired of Mr. Bush paying lip service to the words: “bigotry,” “equality,” “civil rights” when his agenda, at the continuing moment, is nothing more that segregation, discrimination, and religious inoculation. I, personally, am tired of hearing how he supports equality and justice and democracy and civil rights in a nation that he systematically has destroyed to rebuild in his own image, to avoid, mock, wittle away and ignore the rights of american citizens.
Posted by: Robert at January 26, 2005 07:50 PMThe DRAFT is coming!!!
The Draft is coming!!!
All ablebodied Republicans are urged to support their President and VOLUNTEER now!!! Do the Moral Thing!!! Go to Iraq and spread Democracy and Liberty there!!!
GO!!!
GO!!!
Well, the Iraqis say Ibrahim Jaafari. Who he? Apparently he’s a pro-Iranian whose party was causing trouble back when Saddam was watching the Blackhawks and T-52s hum past on Baghdad’s main drag. According to the opinion polls (near the end!), Iraqis like him a lot more than Allawi.
However, the fact that I’ve never heard of him makes my cynical brain think he hasn’t been earmarked for power…
Posted by: Paul at January 26, 2005 09:00 PMA prediction is challenging, because I’m pretty sure a lot of information is being withheld, and false information is being fed to the media. The fact that there is still no effective Iraqi army, and that the overall trend of insurgent attacks has been rising, suggests that things in cental Iraq are worse than we suspect. It’s obvious reconstruction is going much, much more slowly than planned. I suspect there are a lot more oil pipelines blown up than reported.
Having said that, it’s hard to imagine the situation getting worse, short of a neighboring nation intervening. If the US or Israel bombs Iran, all bets are off.
The elections will be heralded as a great triumph, simly because they will take place. The results are a foregone conclusion, regardless of Sunni participation; the Shias will come into power. A unified showing by the Kurds might allow them to play a disproportiately powerful role, but unless the Shias split into opposing factions that can be played off one another- and I don’t think that’s likely- that won’t really matter either. The Sunnis will NOT like being ruled by the Shias. No amount of voter participation will change that, and the insurgency will continue unabated.
Supposedly no Shia clerics will serve in the government. That’s cause for optimism. Perhaps it’s a case of ‘unnatural selection.’ Many politically active clerics are dead, with the notable exceptions of al-Hakim & al-Sadr.
In October the Iraqis will vote to ratify a constitution. Both Kurds & Sunnis will have an opportunity to tank it. More likely it will go through, with Sunnis simply refusing to participate in the voting process.
In the US, we’ll celebrate the birth of Iraqi democracy. In practical terms, the situation won’t change in central Iraq. The Kurds will thank us, which is good. So will the Shias- that could be good. The Iranians will be extremely pleased- and if the US would change its whole approach, that could be good- but given the belligerent nationalism of the Bush administration…
I predict the US will reach a point of exhaustion- financial, if nothing else. A $100 billion/year price tag is cratering the budget right now, with no end in sight. This is occurring in the midst of the good times of economic recovery, Bush style. We already know the military plans on keeping 120,000 US troops in Iraq through 2006. Doesn’t sound like military expects good things to happen, either.
By late 2007, with US elections looming, the US will declare glorious victory and, for the most part, withdraw. By that point I will predict Iraq will, at a minimum, be a loose confederation, and more likely be split into three separate states.
For US foreign policy, that will amount to a win in Kurdistan, a qualified win in southern Iraq (and a great big kiss from the Iranians), and a disastrous loss in central Iraq. But we’ll never know that if we can just keep the tv on Fox News.
It’s funny, because most of what I’m predicting seems to be obvious, the conventional wisdom, yet the whole thing could so easily go out the window in short order. There’s a slim chance the whole things could work out, & I’ll keep my fingers crossed. There’s a better chance it won’t…
Posted by: phx8 at January 26, 2005 09:59 PMThat is an interesting way to put it. So those coalition troops are not trying to secure the country and just ignoring calls by the UN?
Sorry Jack, that was (I guess) a way too subtle dig at Bush for refusing to commit enough troops and rejecting offers of French, German, Indian, and other peacekeeping troops under a UN mandate.
BTW, is this your prediction:
Iraq will hold the elections on schedule. Most of the country will vote, although there will be sections where voting is impossible. There will be violence, but less than anticipated. A coalition of Shiites and Kurds will win and set up an unstable coalition. They have effective control over more than 80% of the country, including almost all the oil wealth. Terrorists continue sporadic attacks. The Iraqi authorities will occasionally respond with excessive force, which will upset the chattering classes, but gradually reduce violence. Everybody claims that they predicted this relatively good outcome and liberals attack the Iraqi government for not being democratic enough or inclusive of all points of view. Pundits point to potential problems and complain that the economy and organization are not up to Swiss standards. But it actually works well. Media attention drains away from Iraq. Academics will begin to develop complicated theories proving that this outcome was inevitable and that George Bush somehow actually slowed the wonderful process.Posted by: American Pundit at January 27, 2005 12:18 AM
The elections will be heralded as a great triumph, simly because they will take place.
That’s funny, phx8. Bush just said that exact thing,
“The notion somehow we’re not making progress I just don’t subscribe to. I mean, we’re having elections… The fact that they’re voting in itself is successful…”“I firmly planted the flag of liberty.”
Oh. Well. Mission accomplished, then. Cukoo! Cukoo! :)
Guy’s, what happens when the Iraqi’s install a government that is unfriendly to our cause and demands that we leave?
Posted by: Rocky at January 27, 2005 02:51 AMRocky, there’s a flippant answer: leave. And then there’s a different answer based on how permanent the 14 “enduring bases” we’re building in Iraq really are.
You guys have no idea what the hell you are all talking about. THANK GOD George W. Bush is my President AND YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Greg at January 28, 2005 03:15 PMWhy don’t you educate us, Greg?
