• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why Iraqis should boycott the election?

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
If Iyad Allawi was a true Iraqi, he would not have vehemently opposed the call to postpone elections by the many Iraqi political parties two weeks ago. The fact that he did so, goes to show that this election will definitely be a sham and might surpass the facade that took place in Ukraine recently. The end result and I dare say will be an exile being "elected" who has probably lived most of his life abroad in luxury and knows next to nothing about the problems of an average Iraqi, jumping at this opportunity to exploit his country's resources and pleasing his American masters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forty-seven Iraqi political parties met on 17 November and made the decision to boycott the coming Iraq election. The People's Struggle Movement (Al-Kifah al-Shabi), which I represent, was one of those groups.

After carefully studying Iraq's situation, considering the military occupation as well as economic and national interests, we felt there were enough reasons for any patriotic Iraqi to boycott the proposed January election.

It is a violation of all international laws. International charters that regulate the relationship between occupier and occupied do not give occupying authorities the mandate to instigate a change in the country's social, economic and political structure.

The planned election will change the political composition of Iraq to suit the interests of the occupation authorities. The change will also lead to ethnic, sectarian and religious divisions that the Iraqi state and people had succeeded to avoid.

Historically, Iraqis have been able to coexist and the spectre of civil war did not loom until the country was stricken by the US-led occupation.

Many Iraqi political activists believe the coming election results have been decided already. They also believe the electoral process will not be free and democratic but will be exclusively for those who maintain strong ties with the US occupation authorities. We feel that all steps have been taken to secure full US domination of decision-makers in Iraq.

A look at the electoral process and the composition of the current national council reveals that the election's main mission will be to install some of the country's most notorious politicians who have constantly spoken proudly of their links to international intelligence agencies.

The coming election will give power to every politician who has assisted the invaders and collaborated with them to consolidate the occupation. Therefore, we believe that even after the election, the decision-making process will be taken in the US embassy in Baghdad and the elected government will be no more than a vehicle to carry out Washington's decisions.

It is very difficult for any sensible person to believe that the US would give up its domination of Iraq after spending billions of dollars and sacrificing the lives of hundreds of its soldiers.

We cannot believe that after all this the US will simply allow free and democratic elections to take place in Iraq that could install a government which could make it its first priority to tell foreign troops to get out.

We strongly believe that the main purpose of the election process is to secure a government that will facilitate long-lasting agreements with the US to keep its forces on Iraqi soil and transform the country into an American colony.

The US administration works hard to portray the Iraq election as a political achievement to cover over the scar that the war has left on its credibility.

Washington will use the election card to pull the wool over the eyes of the international community to prevent it from seeing the tragic consequences that the war has left on the Iraqi people.

For all these reasons, many Iraqi political activists feel it is their national duty to boycott the 30 January election.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Mohammed al-Obaidi is the spokesman for the People's Struggle Movement (Al-Kifah al-Shabi) in Iraq, and works as a University Professor in the UK. He was born and educated in al-Adhamiyah district in Baghdad. This article, was written exclusively for Aljazeera.net, and was translated from Arabic.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/N...-925F-4070AC17D606.htm
 
What's the solution if the answer isn't to at least try and hold a free election?
 
Originally posted by: yllus
What's the solution if the answer isn't to at least try and hold a free election?

Good question. It would be dodging the problem if I say that the war shouldn't have occured in the first place. Even though it was illegal (IMO atleast), it has happened and no one can change that. What's the solution? In my opinion (and this is just one suggestion), the UN should be allowed to administer the whole election unrestricted. Atleast voting fraud would be minimized and there will be a semblance of the international community taking part in the betterment of Iraqis. And let's not forget, the credibility of the UN is not the point of this thread.
 
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: yllus
What's the solution if the answer isn't to at least try and hold a free election?

Good question. It would be dodging the problem if I say that the war shouldn't have occured in the first place. Even though it was illegal (IMO atleast), it has happened and no one can change that. What's the solution? In my opinion (and this is just one suggestion), the UN should be allowed to administer the whole election unrestricted. Atleast voting fraud would be minimized and there will be a semblance of the international community taking part in the bettermend of Iraqis. And let's not forget, the credibility of the UN is not the point of this thread.

Problem is that we have created a Hornets Nest and nobody wants to come in and help clean it up..

Elections cannot be held in an atmosphere like what they face everyday... Wasn't it just yesterday that 30 police members were killed? Sounds really secure...
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
How can the candidates even run a campaign? Someone care to explain that?
Good question. Apparently the % of urbanized population in Iraq is 68%. That likely means radios and televisions are somewhat accessible to two-thirds of the nation's populace (# of stations still functions, unknown). At that point voting is probably bound to occur down religious or regional lines, which might not prove to unite the country but is at least realistic.
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Good question. It would be dodging the problem if I say that the war shouldn't have occured in the first place. Even though it was illegal (IMO atleast), it has happened and no one can change that. What's the solution? In my opinion (and this is just one suggestion), the UN should be allowed to administer the whole election unrestricted. Atleast voting fraud would be minimized and there will be a semblance of the international community taking part in the bettermend of Iraqis. And let's not forget, the credibility of the UN is not the point of this thread.
*nods* The morality behind the invasion at this stage is indeed moot when talking about where Iraq is to go next. The UN administering the election sounds like a fine idea to me, perhaps being the only way for the U.S. to shake off the conspiracy theories that are sure to circulate about the election being rigged. Has this been put forward at all?
 
Originally posted by: yllus
The UN administering the election sounds like a fine idea to me, perhaps being the only way for the U.S. to shake off the conspiracy theories that are sure to circulate about the election being rigged. Has this been put forward at all?

Again we come full circle to the pre-war period. The heavily one-sided, do-it-alone U.S. policy never allowed the U.N. to intervene in the military build-up before the war and the U.N. has not been allowed to play a significant role in post-war Iraq either. Is this going to change now? Highly unlikely. I think even if the U.N. volunteered/promised to put in massive efforts to rebuild and restore Iraq, they would not be welcome.
 
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Again we come full circle to the pre-war period. The heavily one-sided, do-it-alone U.S. policy never allowed the U.N. to intervene in the military build-up before the war and the U.N. has not been allowed to play a significant role in post-war Iraq either. Is this going to change now? Highly unlikely. I think even if the U.N. volunteered/promised to put in massive efforts to rebuild and restore Iraq, they would not be welcome.
*nods again* I don't agree that the UN would have been helpful in the pre-war buildup - 10+ years of ignored resolutions proves that in my mind - but it was a major failing of the current administration to not foresee the wild criticisms that are bound to erupt after the January election. Anyways, a relevant news article.

Limited U.N. Role Hinders Iraq Vote:

The United Nations has failed to fully staff its operation in Iraq, imperiling the timing and quality of the elections there and forcing inexperienced Iraqis to take the lead in preparing for the country's first democratic balloting, due in January, U.S. officials and election experts said.

Of the 35 U.N. officials in Iraq, only four or five are election experts, U.N. officials said. In Afghanistan, which has a similar-size population, the U.N. had 600 international staff, including 266 election experts, for the first democratic poll this month. A major increase in Iraq is unlikely soon because of deteriorating security and the U.S. failure to quickly mobilize Georgian and Fijian troops for a protection force or provide an acceptable alternative, U.S. and U.N. officials said.

The United States and the United Nations are now caught in a diplomatic Catch-22, U.S. and U.N. officials and election experts said. The Bush administration is disappointed in U.N. reluctance to deploy more staff; the United Nations is frustrated that the United States has not quashed the insurgency, leaving the country too dangerous for foreign election workers.


This makes me think that there's more cooperation going on than I have imagined, but it's run into difficulties for obvious reasons. Officially on the subject of a boycott, I agree with the distinguished Gen. Powell:

Secretary of State Colin Powell says he hopes the Iraqi people will see their interests represented through elections and the formation of a National Assembly, not violent insurgency, reiterating his position that Iraqi elections should be held as scheduled on January 30, 2005.

In a December 2 interview with Radio Sawa, Powell said he hopes that groups in Iraq will stop encouraging or providing support to insurgents, and say "we want to represent our political interests, not by the gun, but by the ballot and by being part of this political process ... not throwing bombs at each other in the streets and killing innocent people and killing the dreams of the Iraqi people for a better future."

Despite some Iraqi political groups calling for a delay in holding elections on January 30, Powell said, "the bulk of the opinion is that we should move forward."

"The [Iraqi] people want it. The people are organizing. Registration is taking place. The lists are being prepared. Registration packets are being sent out across the country. The security plan is being put in place, so let's go forward and have this election," said Powell.
 
Personally, I think Iraq is still a WAR ZONE

How will it help the Iraqis to hold elections now when the country is still in a state of chaos?
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Personally, I think Iraq is still a WAR ZONE

How will it help the Iraqis to hold elections now when the country is still in a state of chaos?
I imagine it's mostly a shot in the war for minds and hearts. Once the people have voted, any insurgencies after that point aren't about freedom - they're about seeking power no matter what the people want. Supposedly the support for the insurgents would dry up at that point, at least until democracy is given a trial run.
 
holding the elections will please the Shiites who want to finally gain control of Iraq's government. Thats also one of the reasons why the Sunnis don't want to hold elections.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: dahunan
Personally, I think Iraq is still a WAR ZONE

How will it help the Iraqis to hold elections now when the country is still in a state of chaos?
I imagine it's mostly a shot in the war for minds and hearts. Once the people have voted, any insurgencies after that point aren't about freedom - they're about seeking power no matter what the people want. Supposedly the support for the insurgents would dry up at that point, at least until democracy is given a trial run.


How is that freedom ? It's a atmosphere full of violence in which voters will either not show up do to fear of being killed or only be voting in limited "secure areas" with our soldiers guarding the polling places. This will ensure that the majority of peoples voices are not heard and will also ensure that the election will be viewed as fraud by most Iraqis. You can't have free and open elections while there is ongoing violence in a nation.
 
Originally posted by: maddogchen
holding the elections will please the Shiites who want to finally gain control of Iraq's government. Thats also one of the reasons why the Sunnis don't want to hold elections.


I agree the Shiites are going to come out on top. They have been gearing up for this election and preparing for it. Once they win they will go about with their Islamic Shiite agenda.
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: dahunan
Personally, I think Iraq is still a WAR ZONE

How will it help the Iraqis to hold elections now when the country is still in a state of chaos?
I imagine it's mostly a shot in the war for minds and hearts. Once the people have voted, any insurgencies after that point aren't about freedom - they're about seeking power no matter what the people want. Supposedly the support for the insurgents would dry up at that point, at least until democracy is given a trial run.


How is that freedom ? It's a atmosphere full of violence in which voters will either not show up do to fear of being killed or only be voting in limited "secure areas" with our soldiers guarding the polling places. This will ensure that the majority of peoples voices are not heard and will also ensure that the election will be viewed as fraud by most Iraqis. You can't have free and open elections while there is ongoing violence in a nation.
Perhaps. Even if the situation is like you say it is, they still have actual Iraqi staff handling the election, there will be 30,000 polling stations dispersed in 18 provinces, and security will be ratcheted up as high as possible by the troops of the US/UK.

The overriding factor is that what Gen. Powell has said above: Forget the pointless insurgencies and join the political process, because it's going to roll forward with or without you. It's not a bad strategy.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: dahunan
Personally, I think Iraq is still a WAR ZONE

How will it help the Iraqis to hold elections now when the country is still in a state of chaos?
I imagine it's mostly a shot in the war for minds and hearts. Once the people have voted, any insurgencies after that point aren't about freedom - they're about seeking power no matter what the people want. Supposedly the support for the insurgents would dry up at that point, at least until democracy is given a trial run.


How is that freedom ? It's a atmosphere full of violence in which voters will either not show up do to fear of being killed or only be voting in limited "secure areas" with our soldiers guarding the polling places. This will ensure that the majority of peoples voices are not heard and will also ensure that the election will be viewed as fraud by most Iraqis. You can't have free and open elections while there is ongoing violence in a nation.
Perhaps. Even if the situation is like you say it is, they still have actual Iraqi staff handling the election, there will be 30,000 polling stations dispersed in 18 provinces, and security will be ratcheted up as high as possible by the troops of the US/UK.

The overriding factor is that what Gen. Powell has said above: Forget the pointless insurgencies and join the political process, because it's going to roll forward with or without you. It's not a bad strategy.
So the Vichey French..err Iraqis will be in charge of the election.

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: yllus
Perhaps. Even if the situation is like you say it is, they still have actual Iraqi staff handling the election, there will be 30,000 polling stations dispersed in 18 provinces, and security will be ratcheted up as high as possible by the troops of the US/UK.

The overriding factor is that what Gen. Powell has said above: Forget the pointless insurgencies and join the political process, because it's going to roll forward with or without you. It's not a bad strategy.
So the Vichey French..err Iraqis will be in charge of the election.
hahaha. 🙂 I'd be careful comparing any nationality to the French - some people would take that as a pretty grave insult. 😛
 
Back
Top