Allawi: Iraqis may be unable to vote in some places

[vaulos]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/ ... index.html

"Certainly, there are some pockets who will not take part in these elections, but they are not many pockets," he said. "In the next two weeks, there should be a consensus on taking part in elections in Iraq."

Iraqis go to the polls January 30 to elect a 275-seat transitional national assembly.

In cities where security is a concern, Allawi said, officials have contacted tribal leaders and clerics to urge an end to terrorist attacks, and "these contacts are bearing fruit."

[Partha]

The 4 provinces which they admit aren't secure? 42% of Iraq's population.

[Ddrak]

The "pockets" are basically the majority of Sunnis, as far as I can tell. If that's true then an election won't do anything to settle things down as it will just further the feeling of disenfranchisement that the Sunnis feel which is pushing the insurgency.

Of course, most rational people have been saying that Iraq won't be stable enough for a proper election for months now. Allawi has only just figured it out? Sure...

Dd

[vaulos]

Well, the problem is that the insurgents are fighting to delay elections indefinately. If we delay elections, then we just play into thier hands. If we have elections, then we put pressure on the tribal leaders in the area to shut down the insurgency from the inside, in order that they can gain SOME voice in the political process. What I think you will see come January 30th is that insurgents who block the election process will start being seen as the enemy not only of the Shiite majority, but also of the Sunni minority.

Or at least, that is my hope. But, I just can't see the leaders of those communities standing around saying, no voice is better than some voice - violence is better than minority player. Anyway, we'll all end up crossing our fingers here in a couple weeks.

[Ddrak]

I think they're going to see the ugly truth that a democracy in Iraq would give Shi'ites control of everything and the Sunni would actually have no voice. From a Sunni perspective, what's better? An independant Sunni nation-state which controls a hell of a lot of oil, or being a minority in a Shi'ite dominated government where you don't really control much of anything?

When you couple that with the instilled dislike of the US occupation, the insurgency really has no good reason to die down. I've heard stories time after time since the invasion that things are coming to a head and will get quiet in a month or so - hasn't happened because the primary reason for insurgency hasn't gone away: the fact that Iraq isn't really a cohesive nation and has no particular incentive to be one.

Dd

[Kulaf]

IMO the best solution would be to return "Iraq" back into the 3 province setup that existed prior to the British restructuring of the region after WWI. If there is one thing we should be able to take from the former Yugoslavia is that nation building of distinct ethnic/religious groups does not work in the absence of a totalitarian power.

[Ddrak]

I tend to agree, however you then have the problem that almost all of the oil is shared by Sunni and Kurdish territories, which leaves the Shi'ites somewhat out in the cold once the other two find alternate ports or pipelines to ship their oil out of.

Even so, I think it's the best solution of a bad set of options as well, at least for the Iraqis.

Dd

[Eidolon Faer]

Unless I'm mistaken, Ddrak, isn't the Iraqi government set up along parliamentary lines?

What we're likely to see is something much more akin to Australian or English government rather than the American system, and I think that is for the best, as a Parliamentary system is better suited to handle the fragmented battleground of many small ethnic identities, religious coalitions, and party affiliations than is the United States' 2-party model.

In such a system, a small group can achieve a great deal by trading their votes in a canny fashion. I suspect that the Sunni minority will do quite well for themselves unless they slit their own throats during the voting process, as Vaulos pointed out.

Besides, forcing these people to DISCUSS political solutions as part of election campaigning and a political process is going to open up whole new vistas for a people unaccustomed to anything other than following the orders of whichever dictator has a gun aimed at them. Just realizing they HAVE A CHOICE is going to be a huge paradigm shift for these people. I'm expecting the next few years to be VERY interesting over there.

But give it 20 years and these people will be Libertarians. The most ardently enthusiastic participant in democracy that I've ever met was a gentleman who immigrated to the United States from behind the Iron Curtain when he was about 25 years old. In a sense, growing up in an open political process, we are the last ones to truly appreciate it.

[Ddrak]

A Parliamentary process works for minority parties when no single group has an absolute majority. In Iraq,just over 60% of the population are Shi'ite, under 20% Sunni and 20% Kurdish. Unless they abandon the equality of votes and give extra weight to minorities (which would also be a recipe for disaster) then the Shi'ites don't have to form coalitions with anyone to push their agenda.

Essentially you end up with a one party system, where no one cares what any other party wants. That's not a recipe for discussion on any level - it's a formula for civil war.

Dd

[vaulos]

I think it is rather likely that splitting Iraq into 3 providences would lead to a Shi'ite insurgency before the split, and outright war afterwards.

[Eidolon Faer]

I suspect the Shia will fragment into several sub-parties divided by subsect, tribal identity, or region. As will the Kurds and the Sunni to a lesser extent.

After all, if the 60% Shia majority were as unified and jackbooted as you seem to be implying, there would have been a civil war long ago. Once the dust settled Iraq would have been left with 30% Shi'ites, 20% Kurds, 0% Sunni's, and 50% Deadites. Then the 30% Shi'ites, who'd have all the weapons they took from the Sunni Ba'athist regime, would eye the Kurds and say "We're in charge here. Got a problem with that?"

When you've got a majority THAT LARGE, they're going to have their own way under ANY stable system of government that doesn't involve crew-served weapons. Face facts. I don't feel a damned bit sorry about how the mighty Ba'athist Sunni have fallen, and the Shia have a damned low benchmark to beat before they fail to be better for the Kurds than Saddam was.

[Kulaf]

"I think it is rather likely that splitting Iraq into 3 providences would lead to a Shi'ite insurgency before the split, and outright war afterwards."

Well there is going to be bloodshed one way or another, but basically it has to be what the people want.....much like the split of India from a unified country based in English rule to a seperate India and Pakistan.

[Ddrak]

After all, if the 60% Shia majority were as unified and jackbooted as you seem to be implying, there would have been a civil war long ago.

They tried. Several times. Saddam was just rather ruthless in suppressing it.

And yes, Saddam wasn't nice to the Kurds. Why did that enter into the argument? At least the no fly zone fixed that 12 years ago.

Dd