Rummy says half an election is better than none

Remove all ads!

Well, democracy on a roll here. Because certain areas are not too peaceful, we wont let these people vote. The Question is: who decides what area is peaceful enough? Will it only be the pro-America, and its pet interim government that votes?

The thing is, these violent areas, are often filled with those dissatisfied with the way Iraq is being handled. So not letting these areas vote is great. Less negative results.

Regerdless of all this, the real question is: How legal are an election, where only part of the country can vote? You cant just say, oh, half an election will count. What if the US elections were restricted to pro-bush states, because the others are not peaceful enough. Or, only peaceful countries can sit on the UN. It's a joke, you cant pick and choose democracy. If you want elections, you hold them all over. If it isnt peaceful enough, then you have to wait. Anything that is held in only parts of the country is not only ilegal, but is ilegitimate. Still, Idoubt the current US administration really cares about fair voting methods do they.

 

I think those areas can't vote because it would be impossible to set up any government voting station without some nutter blowing it up and wrecking it anyway. Better to just not bother rather than sacrifice MORE government official lives.

 

I completely disagree with that. As things stand, suicide bombers, and militants have focussed on places like Baghdad, Falluja and such. So what? Just because they havent attacked in smaller places, doesnt mean they WONT. If anything, they have proven capable of hitting anywhere.

You set up polling boothes in a few areas, you think the militants wont attack them because they have to travel? give me a break. They will go where they have to. The only reason they havent attacked some areas is because they have more targets where they are. You set up polling boothes elsewhere, then they will attack, elsewhere.

 

It's more of a risk to place polling booths CLOSER to militant 'hot-spots' than to place them further away. It's just plain logical thinking. Sure, they CAN strike anywhere but they are FAR MORE LIKELY to strike at the closest target.

The chances of success for militants will be higher in chaotic areas since security forces are stretched too thin. Higher chance of success will lead to more attacks.

Why place your government workers at such high risk? Keep the booths AWAY from militant hot-spots so there is a lesser chance of them being targeted.

 

To hold elections is not only completely pointless if it doesn't include all of the Iraqi people, it would be hugely counter productive.

All it would achieve is to give further amunition for the critics of the occupation and induce further condemnation and violent reaction within the Arab world.

Nope, democracy is for all, otherwise there is no democracy.

 

Best not to hold an election till the violence has been quelled then, unless they are able to set up a voting-fortress of some kind in the violent areas where you have to pass metal detectors and sniffer dogs before you can even approach the voting booth. Might seem over-the-top but I couldn't condone sending voting clerks into a violent area when you KNOW they will be targets.

 

@ Abomination - I agree completely with you.

First of all, there aren't going to be any elections come January. As Takara pointed out, if you decide not to hold the elections in the "no-go" zones of the country, the insurgents - or terrorists if you prefer - will simply travel to the areas of the country that are holding the election.

The funny thing is that on Thursday, Bush said there will definitely be elections in Iraq in January because Allawi told them they could. Well what it the world does that prove? If conditions don't get significantly better there between now and January, there's no way they can hold elections.

 

I only have one thing to say to people who believe Bush when he says there'll be elections in January: Puff, puff, pass.

There's no way elections will happen this soon. The only purpose there is in telling the American people that is to paint a rosier picture of Iraq than there really is and sure up Bush's base. If, God forbid, they win, come December they'll say "conditions are not such that fair elections can be held at this point after all," and delay elections for as long as they see fit.

If they are dumb enough to actually have elections now, they''ll be a disaster, and no one will trust the outcome. How would Americans feel if Bush announced "Ok, we're having elections, we just aren't including New York, California and Ohio." Yeah - that'd go over like a turd in a punch bowl. As was said above - a partial democracy is no democracy at all.

Of course, I may be wrong, and they may hold the elections anyway just so they can again wash their hands of the situation like they did with the handover. Neither would surprise me. Bottom line is, Iraq is not ready for fair elections yet. Anyone who believes they are is dreaming. I have my doubts whether they ever really will be. But I guess Bush would say that makes me a "pessimist" and not a realist.

 

I dont think they care about whether the election are true and fair or not. Just look at the handing over of the power. They officially did it even before schedule but no real power have been handed over whatsoever.

 

Rumsfeld... i don't know exactly in which category to place him. His logic is almost of the same level as the former Iraqi minister of information, the famous "Baghdad Bob". Is there ANYONE outthere who takes this man serious ?

 

Oh, only about 48% of my country. Scary, ain't it?

 

Speaking from (if not for) the 48%...

- Rolling elections provide incentive to the Shi'a and Kurdish areas to stay quiet. Suppose the Sunni areas keep rumbling and elections are put on hold for them, until we can quiet 'em down? The squeaky wheel gets the grease -- and it won't be long before the Kurds and Shi'a decide that they aren't getting anything from playing nice. Rolling elections are a double bonus -- they help keep the city quiet before the election, and thanks to the extra legitimacy help keep the city quiet afterwards.

- Yes, bombers could try to strike out at the polling booths in formerly peaceful areas, even though these targets would naturally be the focus of security (for one day). Such attacks wouldn't be unprecedented -- suicide bombers took out a Kurdish political center several months ago. But attacks wouldn't necessarily ruin the elections. If I recall, several hundred people died during the last Nigerian election; the Khmer Rouge threatened mayhem during Cambodia's first free election; the East Timorese independence referendum unleashed massive destruction by bitter Indonesian troops. In all cases, the elections went smoothly with extremely high participation. The desire to vote is intense, and throughout the world the worst riots have occurred not during the vote, but when the polls close before allowing everyone in line to participate.

- Here in America we don't let criminals vote, disenfranchsing a huge swath of the population, but we still consider our elections free and fair. Nor do we allow Tijuana or Toronto to vote even though both cities have huge influxes of American tourists and business. We have something similar in this case. Select districts are overrun by criminals and are openly refusing to endorse the joint national project to democratically unite Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a in one big unhappy family. It is hardly "undemocratic" to exclude these thugs and the hapless, helpless people held under their murderous tyranny -- more hostages than citizens.

How ironic if we would disenfranchise everyone in Iraq because thugs in Fallujah want to...uh, disenfranchise everyone in Iraq. All in the name of true democracy!

 

Right, but there are 2 big things are wrong with this. First, criminals aren't nearly a big enough part of the population to sway the vote one way or the other. Furthermore, unlike in the hotspots of Iraq, their mere presence doesn't prevent or discourage people from voting. We have criminals in every state in the union, and none of them are able to vote. They don't effect the sample size in any meaningful way.

Second, our elections are still considered free and fair because entire regions aren't being denied the chance to vote, whether fear of violence among the people or government neglect be the reason. Not the case in Iraq, so there's no way the elections will represent all Iraqis. Even in the worst slums of Fallujah and Najaf, there are people who want to cast their vote. Not everyone, even in those cities, agrees with the insurgency, and even those sympathetic to the insurgency want their voices heard. Leaving them out just because we can't be bothered to restore peace first is an injustice to us and them. It won't be a fair election, no matter what Rumsfeld says. Someone should tell him that responsible leaders don't suggest "2 outta 3 ain't bad!" is an acceptable attitude to have in a Democracy.

We don't need to disinfranchise everyone, and we wouldn't by delaying the elections. But we have to delay them. Iraq still isn't ready, any way you slice it. Declaring a premature election date for clearly political reasons before a sustainable amount of order is restored is a recipe for disaster. The installation of Allawi and the "handover" were bad enough. Premature elections that are doomed to fail will just be more of the same bad policy.

Wrong. It's precisely because they're surrounded by murderous thugs that their votes need to be heard. That's like saying "too bad" to the little old lady who lives out in Compton, smack in the middle of Crips territory. That's about as undemocratic as it gets.

Huh?!

Not Similar. At all. Not in same country. Their citizens will never, and have never, voted in American elections. Niether do criminals. Not. Relevant.

If there are entire cities or states in America where entire populations aren't voting, for whatever reason, let me know. Otherwise, this doesn't make any sense to even make this as a point.

Do you make false comparisons like this all the time on purpose, or do I just not understand your rhetorical style?

[ September 25, 2004, 01:15: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

The thing I'd be interested in is this. Will Bagdhad be one of the trouble spots? After all, an awful lot of viloence happens there. How good will an election be, if the people of the capital cannot vote? Also, if it's ok to set up polling in heavily dangerous and unstable city of Bagdhad, then why not everywhere else?

 

No, it's my fault -- I skipped some steps. Let me back up.

A stable state democracy assumes a finite number of citizens committed to said state and democracy. Democratic voting can break down if -

- the voting expands beyond its legitimate bounding. If everyone in the world could vote for the US President, then we might be "enfranchising" more people, and it might be more "democratic" in terms of sheer numbers, but it wouldn't make Americans happy, or very committed to their government.

- the voters are committed to tearing down the state. That's why voters aren't allowed to vote to secede (at least, under American and British rules).

- the voters are committed to tearing down the democracy. Voters shouldn't elect would-be dictators in "vote once, and only once" elections.

Fulfill any of these three conditions, and you may be able to hold a vote, but the system will implode under its own weight.

I mentioned Tijuana and Toronto because they match the first condition. They're geographically and culturally very close to America, they're full of Americans, and they're strongly affected by American policy. But they don't get to vote in American elections. It's not even simply a question of a different country -- Korea and Germany were countries divided into separate states, while countries like Canada and Spain are democratic mixes of separate nations/countries.

Under democratic theory, it's not immediately obvious why Tijuana and Toronto aren't part of a broader North American democratic system (or, for that matter, why the US isn't folded into a global system). That's why those examples leapt to mind. (And like any San Diegan, the first thought for Friday night is always Tijuana!)

The point is, the democratic machinery of voting and elections neither sums up, nor trumps, nor even exactly matches, national and personal identities. A San Diegan has a lot more in common with a Tijuanan than a Minnesotan, and the Minnesotan has more in common with the fella from Toronto.

If we recognize that national Iraq is something of an artificial creation -- much as the United States was born as an artificial superstructure for thirteen independent states, or India as the world's largest functioning anarchy -- then Iraqis have more leeway to define who is willing to fit under the definition of the new democratic Iraq, and how, and when. Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a are thinking of themselves more as independent grouplets under the grand Iraqi umbrella, still trying to recover from decades of tyranny wreaked by that very umbrella. Insofar as they're unready for that superstructure, they don't have to hold up the rest of the group, no matter how similar their people are or how much commerce goes on between them. Britain is genuinely European even though it balks at much of EU membership, and the EU is integrating just fine at a faster pace without waiting for it.

As you write:

Given that Iraqi cities have never voted, either, the same applies. Now, granted, once they're folded into the system, there's no going back. (See condition #2.) And the US is not going to let Iraq break up, either. But the federal superstructure can be implemented piecemeal as the various cities and regions are ready, without undermining Iraq's indivisible national identity.

Well, I totally agree that the little old lady needs to vote. That's part of the reason we're glad to see Hussein gone. But don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. Just because we ended Hussein's 100% tyranny doesn't mean we have to get down to 0% tyranny before we can start elections. As suggested before -- given the choice between letting Fallujah's thugs set back Fallujah or set back all of Iraq, which is the more "democratic" solution?

There's no need to work under the assumption that elections are only valid if everybody votes on the same day. If Boston holds a local election and New York doesn't, does that make Boston's mayor illegitimate? Contrarily: if Boston delays its election so that it coincides with New York's, does that make Boston's lingering unelected mayor MORE legitimate?

OK...back to something really important...NWN!

 

GM, the last phrase is completely without point. Boston can vote for a mayor completely seperately from New York for one simple reason. The mayor of Boston is not going to make policy for New York. The people who are going to be represented by someone MUST be allowed to vote for that office. The new Iraqi government is going to effect the lives of the whole country, and not just the peaceful bits. As such, all should vote. Now, if the new Iraqi government only had power of the areas that vote, and the "hot spots" that didnt, are outside their jurisdiction, then I say go for it. Hold those elections. But that is the only way I will feel that they can hold any kind of legitimacy.

[ September 25, 2004, 11:26: Message edited by: Takara ]

 

The election can be valid if the party that is voted in wins by more than if the population of the excluded areas have all voted for their next best rival party.

Although that kind of result would require a landslide of voters and in turn it would probably influence the voters to vote for the most powerful appearing party, in order to bring stability to the country since any kind of stability is better than none at all.

 

My theory is that Bush will hold elections in january at all costs.

To pacify the whole country in order to hold elections would require a lot more soldiers on the ground. Bush won't sent more soldiers to Iraq for obvious reasons: to expensive and makes it even more clear that this Iraq war isn't won yet. More reasons can probably be thought of. It makes no difference if elections are hold in january or later; the country won't be pacified by january nor will it later, probably. Just not enough troops on the ground to control the entire country.

The administration probably hopes to install a 'legitemate' governement in the parts of Iraq they control. They hope that a governement chosen by the people will have more support than a governement installed by Bush & Co. Then they hope that the new governement will reconquer the dissident parts of Iraq.

I think it is a dangerous move to hold premature elections; it could lead to civil war. The parts of Iraq that haven't voted will feel abandoned and not represented by the rest of Iraq. That could lead to hatred between different groups of Iraqis, especially if a part of Iraq that can't vote is largely Sunni (the Sunni triangle). So no elections in january for me.

EDIT: spelling

 

Heershcer, that post, IMHO, was very insightful, and really hits the matter quite nicely. The country is already unstable, and I'm not sure if civil war is innevitable, but having prematue elections might be the straw that breaks the camels back.

One of the possible reasons that Bush is pushing for such early elections, among others, is the pressure he is under from the Shia clerics. They are all but demanding elections ASAP. If he doesnt, the truce and co-operation from them is in chance of dissolving. Unfortunately, this works against the Sunni lot. I dont think it will be possible to reconcile the violence in the Sunni part, and the pressure of the Shia side.

Personally, I think it's a bomb waiting to go off, and the elections might be the spark.