Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
The past month has been a hell of a run, if you think GW's take has been right. At the same time, there is so much room for problems down the line. Here is a posting from an Iraqi blogger on one:
http://iraqilibe.blogspot.com/2005/03/dangerous-games.html
http://iraqilibe.blogspot.com/2005/03/dangerous-games.html
Monday, March 07, 2005
Dangerous games.
Was the Iraqi vote successful? I was asked by an Iraqi-American friend prior to the election whether I think the Iraqi vote would be successful or not. At that time I answered my friend saying that it will be successful in terms of participation and I estimated it to him to be more than 60% but I also thought that it won't be successful if we consider success to be a true democratic election that results in a stable democracy.
The vote results confirmed my hopes and my fears as well. Iraqis voted in large numbers and I still think the percentage of voters compared to eligible voters was higher than 60% and I have explained why in a previous post.
I also thought that it didn't matter if we chose wrongly and that we'd correct whatever mistakes we make in the future as voters' awareness of candidates and parties improves and as security and economy improves which is what's going to happen as I believe and signs of it are showing already.
However this is not the major problem and terrorism is not the major problem either. The major problem in my mind is how divided the Iraqi society is as a result of the terrible policies of successive national governments. I thought that this division caused by fear and sectarian emotions would subside as each sect gets its deserved share in authority and when they see that a central government won't oppress them and that they would gain more by being united with their Iraqi brothers, but certain facts illustrated by the vote results showed me I was probably too optimistic and that the situation is more dangerous than I thought.
I have to say that the majority of Iraqis did not say "yes to democracy" on January the 30th. No, sadly that's not true although I think that probably 20% of voters did say "yes to democracy". What did the rest say then? I think that they said yes to freedom, no to terrorism in general but they did not really endorse democracy but they endorsed their own understanding of democracy.
For the majority of Kurds, mislead/encouraged by their leaders, democracy meant a chance for independence and that's what the majority of them voted for, not for a liberal democratic Iraq that they would become a part of. For many She'at again misled by their leaders democracy meant that they rule Iraq since they're the majority and that's what the majority (not all) voted for. This is why I think Sistani's involvement in politics is so dangerous although I was one of those who said he had done many good things for Iraq and I still think so but that does not mean I should agree with him on everything. He encouraged some She'at who respect him very much and who were not interested in voting to vote, but he did not encourage them to just vote, he encouraged them to vote for one specific list strengthening sectarian feelings among them instead of doing the opposite and politicians who benefited from that personally did not realize the serious long term disadvantages of such a win.
The high percentage of voters made the voting day look great but was it really needed and good for Iraq to have more voters casting their ballot in support of their sectarian or ethnic identity rather than say 40 or 50% voting without anyone playing the role of their guardian? It was certainly good for our battle against terrorism and it was also a victory against dictatorship. It was a victory for the American administration and America as a whole which are all great things in my mind, but it was hardly a victory for democracy in Iraq on the long term.
The small percentage of Sunnis who voted did that to oppose the She'at project represented by the "Unified Coalition List" and that's why the majority of them voted for Allawi. We have a Kurdish project, a She'at project and while there's no Sunni project for the time being it's been reflected as an anti-She'at project. On the other hand we have no Iraqi project. Most politicians on each sect told their people again and again what the elections mean for them and why it's important to preserve their rights but very few put an effort to explain to them why elections were important for Iraq as a nation. Thus they enhanced sectarian feelings instead of patriotic ones because it meant more votes for them.
The Iraqi project however is not entirely absent but those who carried its slogans did not achieve much at all.
The difficulties the "Unified Coalition" is facing to reach an agreement with the Kurds till now is a striking sign of such problems. The Kurdish Alliance will only agree with the Coalition List's project if it leaves them with an opportunity for independence and that's why they insist on Kirkuk being recognized as a part of Kurdistn. It's rich in oil and any independent Kurdish state needs an access to these oil fields in Kirkuk and parts of Mosul that they're also demanding to be included in Kurdistan's borders and without these the Kurdish state would not survive. But of course the Coalition List won't approve of that. Their project unlike the Kurdish one wants Iraq to remain united, but that's mainly so that they can rule it.
Another important issue is that many of these politicians stood by and prevented the elimination of two very dangerous groups that represent far less people than what they claim; the Sunni Scholars and Muqtada Al Sadr followers. These two groups of fanatics represent an obstacle to any social or economic change that put Iraq on the right track. Anything that they see Iraq's interests in they claim that it's a western blasphemy that's not known in Islam so we must reject it. Not only that but they've burned liquor stores, movie theaters, harassed women who drive cars saying that all these things are against the rules of Islam. All that happened not only when Sadr revolted but even at times of 'peace'. As for the Sunni Scholars, their crimes cannot be even counted and just lately Harith Al Dhari said that they can "stop the violence if the Americans put a timetable to withdraw"!
There's no real chance of any reform when crazy fanatics are left free to terrorize people and prevent any free expression of ideas unless it fits their own dictionary. And it's not true that it was done to preserve peace, as Sadr and the Sunni Scholars could rotten in jail or get killed without any significant number of Iraqis giving a sh*t about it.
The Sunni politicians protect the Sunni scholars saying that they represent a high percentage of Sunnis, where in fact they're Ba'athists that have little respect among Sunnis if any, just because it's a card they play against other sects and so do the She'at politicians and some clerics with Sadr.
What we need is a government made of politicians who understand the potential dangers and work hard to restore trust among Iraqis not take advantage of such divisions and even strengthen them. We need politicians who put the fanatic criminals where they belong, not using them to pressure their rivals!
The whole picture looks truly disturbing yet there's hope. A civil war is not possible at all as long as the American troops are in Iraq and even if they leave, leaving few American military bases in Iraq would help a lot to prevent any attempt to stir up a civil war even long before it starts. Iraqis in general do not want to fight each other of course, but the interference of Iraq's neighbors who would support fanatics in each sect might well result in that if Iraq is left alone now or soon. Such interference does not come in support of terror or as a part of fighting America's efforts in Iraq only but it comes mainly as part of each country's attempt to protect its interests and take advantage of its neighbors' temporary weakness, as even democratic Turkey is interfering in Iraq's internal affairs supporting the Turkmen against the Kurds mainly because they have a large Kurdish population in their own borders.
This problem is not just the fault of powerful clerics and current leading politicians, as it has more to do with Iraq's social frame and decades of oppression and foolish policies, but instead of trying to solve it, these people (clerics and politicians) are only aggravating it driven by personal and sectarian ambitions and fears.
Our hopes lie in the economic changes that would re-form the relations in Iraq. They also lie in the possible democratic changes in the neighboring countries, but the main effort lie on our shoulders, Iraqis who believe in an Iraqi project that serves all Iraqi s without any discrimination. The task is huge given the apparent weakness of such groups, but I think an alliance of those democratic powers with the more secular and democratic politicians like Allawi -even though he included many ex-Bathists in his party but that can be solved if he gets more support from moderate liberal Iraqis- and later on with Talibani (if it can be achieved although seems a remote possibility now) and with the much needed support from America and the free world, all this can turn the tables and help make the necessary changes that makes Iraq a real model in the region.
posted by Ali
Yes, except during lent. Lucky for me, I love fish! No matter when, eat it at least once per week. I can't believe you hate fish. Sound like my brother and one son.
