Only one in four will cast vote, Iraqi minister warns The government is planning exceptional security measures for the polls, which will include banning the movement of cars for three days. Voters must walk to cast their ballot and will not be allowed to leave their home district. Many businesses plan to close for five days. Even so, political leaders suspect there will be a very low turnout. Ayham al-Samarrai, the Minister of Electricity, said yesterday "the vote all over Iraq might be only 25 per cent. I asked 18 senior managers in my ministry if they were going to vote; only one said he would." The biggest turnout is likely to be in Iraqi Kurdistan, because the Kurds support the US presence and the interim government. It is also safe for them to go to polling stations. Shia voters in southern Iraq may also have little to fear, and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered Shia leader, has said that all Iraqis ought to vote. But Baghdad and the Sunni Arab districts of northern Iraq are very dangerous. Many here will boycott the poll, seeing it as hopelessly tainted because it is taking place under the auspices of the US occupation. Mr Samarrai noted that "a police colonel working to protect our electrical power facilities called Nadir Hassan, along with his five-year-old daughter, were shot to death in their car this morning." He did not think people in middle-class suburbs in Baghdad would care to vote in the circumstances. A reaction against the religious fanatics leading the Sunni resistance and the Shia religious parties is likely to benefit Iyad Allawi, the interim Prime Minister. "Allawi is now posing as the champion of secularism, though his list is a hotchpotch," Adnan Pachachi, the elder statesman of Iraqi politics and former Foreign Minister, said yesterday. He had sought to get the election postponed, largely because the Sunni community was infuriated by the bloody US assault on Fallujah last November. Mr Pachachi believed the electoral coalitions, particularly the Shia list put together under the auspices of Grand Ayatollah Sistani, "will disintegrate after the elections". He expects the government that emerges to be similar to those in Lebanon, with a cabinet made up of representatives of different factions and communities. The Iraqi government seems determined that, however limited its authority over Iraq, it will keep control of the hundreds of foreign journalists who have arrived to cover the election. Many were queuing up yesterday in the Convention Centre in the Green Zone for the required four types of identity card. Everybody entering the building was searched three times. The willingness of the US government to provide space on helicopters to move journalists around the country shows that Washington is determined to present the election as a success. There is no doubt that many of the four million Kurds and 15 to 16 million Shias are eager to vote, but the poll is likely to crystallise their differences with the five million Sunni Arabs. The armed resistance is now so experienced and entrenched that the election is unlikely to have much effect on it. Insurgents have distributed blood-curdling leaflets in Baghdad threatening to deluge polling stations with rockets and mortar fire. A voter "will not be able to imagine what will happen to him and his family for taking part in this crusader's conspiracy to occupy the land of Islam", they said. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=604591
Beat me to it! Hell, 1 in 4 is better than most local elections held during non-Presidential election years. This is great news!
Now all they have to do is disinfranchise 10% of those who voted, and we will have true-to-form American-style democracy in Iraq! After that, the newly selected government can begin to lie to the people, run a huge deficit, and "democracy" will be born-again!
Not for presidential elections. 30% is a lower turn out. But even if it was 45% turnout that still wouldn't be so good. Since this election decides who will make the constitution for this country and lay the foundation down. If one group is left out of laying the foundation down, the problems will reverborate and exist, for much if not all of Iraq's future.
Guess nobody wants to talk about the elections. hum... Ok, what happens if afer the elections, Blair decides to pull British troops? Blair hopes Iraq elections will give British exit strategy LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who lost credibility for joining the US-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, may find Iraq's general elections offer him an exit strategy, analysts say. Iraq has haunted Blair for months. In the last few days, the trial of three British soldiers accused of abusing Iraqi civilians has put him against the ropes while he attempts to concentrate on domestic policy ahead of general elections expected in May. Despite the ongoing violence, Blair has vigorously defended plans to go ahead with Iraq's elections on Sunday for an assembly that will draft a new constitution. "It's an exit strategy. It's getting out without appearing to have lost," British political analyst Paul Whiteley told AFP. "They (the British government) want a reasonably stable government so they can leave." Last week, the Daily Telegraph said London had pushed Washington to establish a timetable for the pullout of troops from Iraq. Blair did not give any firm dates for bringing home some 9,000 British troops, but said London and Washington would have a better idea of when to withdraw after the vote on Sunday. "Both ourselves and the Iraqis want us to leave as soon as possible," Blair told the Financial Times. "The question is what is 'as soon as possible'. And the answer to that is: when the Iraqi forces have the capability to do the job." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/afp/20050127/wl_mideast_afp/iraqvotebritain
So the insurgents are screwing the Sunnis. Oh the irony. Well, if its good gor Allawi, and he's good for secularism - then its all good. Unlike some of the doomsayers here on the board, I think this is definitely a good step and I hope that as many Iraqis as possible defy the terrorists/insurgents.
Saddam was pretty good for secularism during most of his reign too, in fact, that's one of the reasons why we propped him up for 10 years or so.
What do you think the voter turnout will have to be for this to be seen as a legitimate election? Most democracies have turnouts of at least 70%. I would say that below 60% it becomes very sketch as to whether the result truly represents the will of the people. The differences between the regions in Iraq make this problem even worse. Let’s say that there is a very high turnout in the Kurdish regions, and a very low turnout elsewhere. It could be that the Kurds elect the president, and that may not be accepted by the Sunnis or the Shiites. That will be the most important measure of success, whether or not the results are widely accepted in Iraq.
Yeah, those the insurgents don't want to show up to vote will be discouraged for fear of their life. That will definitely skew things.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but if not, I agree with you. How anyone could call this election legit is beyond me. We are propping up the person we want to win. Hayes is right! As long as "our man" (x CIA guy) wins, it's all good!
I wasn't being sarcastic then but I am now... Everybody over there hates America. What makes you think that even one person will vote for a candidate that America "props up?" On top of that we have the insurgents who are threatening to kill the kind of Iraqi voters who might vote for the least mullah-inspired, pro-American candidates. Now, I ask you... is that sarcasm or not?
Probably.. but why... if everybody over there hates America why would they support the propped-up American puppet candidate?
For one reason he is the ONLY candidate who can run TV commercials. They appear in Iraq at every commercial break. He also has the bully pulpit traditional incumbants use to their advantage, etc. He has a lot of advantages.
That’s a good question and, to be honest, I don't have an answer. But when candidates can't even put their name on a campaign poster for fear of death and the people won't even know the polling places until the day of the elections, do you really think this is a fair and free election?
Are you trying to imply that the US is responsible for all of that? We have free elections in the US, but they aren't really fair because they are unduly influenced by media buys. We also have a really lazy, uninformed electorate. Is that fair? I doubt it but what can you do about it? To address FB: I guess Allawi does have some built-in advantages, but he is also the biggest target out there. How fun!
Ah, yeah. Except for the 'you get to vote' part. Some of you guys pessimism is so damn depressing. If you really can't see this is better than them living under a complete freakin totalitarian regime, then I guess I have to throw my hands up and say 'whatever.' OK, you don't agree with the war in Iraq. I don't agree with you, but I understand your viewpoint. But GEEZ!!! C'Mon!!! The fact that anyone participating in the election is targeted is NOT OUR FAULT. Its freakin terrorists and ex-Saddam insurgents that DO NOT WANT this election. The simple fact is that Iraq is NOT GOING BACK to Saddam's regime. If you really want the best for Iraq you should say 'I hope as many people turn out as possible.' If you think they don't know who is running because of TV ads then you are fooling yourself. Allwai will win not because the CIA is rigging the elections, but because Iraqis want stability first and foremost. They can always vote him out in the NEXT election. I'm so disappointed that there are just a bunch of punks taking crappy shots at the process, instead of hoping for a new dawn in Iraq. Take your prozac please...
Whatever hayes, I'm just trying to hold you to the neocon type philosophy that you have clung too for the last year or so with respect to Iraq. "He's ok as long as he's secular" is the exact opposite of that, really. That was the realist line towards Saddam for many years: keep him contained and secular, and he's no harm to anybody but his own people, and it's the same reason why we turn a blind eye to President's-for-life like Mubarak, and why people like you will tout death squads as a necessary evil (though I imagine that you espouse in part just for the purposes of being able to mess with your evil twin glynch). However the realist case for invading Iraq collapsed a long time ago when the WMD sites turned out to be figments of neocon imagination and/or deliberate fabrications, nobody disputes this, so I find it odd, or not really odd so much as an admission of error, that you have lapsed back into the realist worldview, even if you dress it up with wistful odes about voting. YOu can call me a pessimist for saying this, but that doesn't change the fact that the situation is straight ass. As far as Allawi himself, "Saddam Lite" was the description used by various US officials in John Anderson's New Yorker profile last week, and I won't go into the various stories about his being a former hitman for Saddam or murdering suspects to make a point. Just be careful what you wish for.
