Iraq Election Turnout
Preliminary reports show Sunni voter turnout for the Sunday election in Iraq was perhaps even lower than expected, while non-Sunni turnout may have been fairly high.
The process leading up to this election is deeply flawed and there will undoubtedly be reasons to complain about future aspects of the process. But the process itself is the best hope the Iraqis have to arrive at actual self-governance. In fact the only alternative seems to be to disdain the electoral results and work with the insurgents to gradually wear down the will of the American people to stay in Iraq. But even if the insurgents prevailed in a war of attrition, self-governance is not what the insurgents are offering - they are offering anarchy and civil war, leading to establishment of an Islamic theocratic government.
In the pre-invasion discussions, the Bush people always seemed to discount the question, "But what if we liberate the Iraqi people and then they freely choose Islamic theocracy?" They said it would not happen because free people would never choose a theocracy over a democracy. In fact, they knew it would not happen, because they never intended to give the Iraqis that choice. I agree with not giving them that choice, because theocracy, like dictatorship, can never be freely chosen. To vote to submit to such dominance is to vote to be unfree.
The process now is for the Iraqis to work within the guidelines, admittedly established under overwhelming US influence, to establish the best Constitution they can under the circumstances prevailing. Scholarly examination of the history of Constitutional adoption from other nations, combined with free debate and open consideration of all viewpoints should be the foundation for working out agreements and compromises and ultimately arriving at the best possible consensus.
I am beginning a read of "Miracle at Philadelphia", Catherine Drinker Bowen’s account of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787. I have read a few books on the subject before, but as Bowen writes in her preface, "Considering the immense amount of literature on the subject, it is surprising how little the average American knows about the making of our Constitution." We may have a vision of the "Founding Fathers", flush with the success of the 13 colonies over the British in the Revolutionary War, harmoniously and spontaneously agreeing to our Constitution, as if by some almost divine guidance. But in fact, relations between the colonies were quite acrimonious and the Founders were more mindful of the differences between the colonies than of the similarities. Rhode Island, like most Sunnis in Iraq, chose not to participate in the process.
The initial appointment of an Iraqi governing council and the supposed turnover of sovereignty had little or no credibility, because of minimal Iraqi participation. This election, with large numbers of Iraqis choosing to vote, even with its obvious shortcomings, has much more credibility. The insurgents do not seem to have discouraged significant numbers of non-Sunni Iraqis from voting. We might hope this would take much wind out of the insurgent sails, but until sitting duck American troops can be replaced by adequately trained Iraqi forces, anti-American insurgents will continue the storm.
The process leading up to this election is deeply flawed and there will undoubtedly be reasons to complain about future aspects of the process. But the process itself is the best hope the Iraqis have to arrive at actual self-governance. In fact the only alternative seems to be to disdain the electoral results and work with the insurgents to gradually wear down the will of the American people to stay in Iraq. But even if the insurgents prevailed in a war of attrition, self-governance is not what the insurgents are offering - they are offering anarchy and civil war, leading to establishment of an Islamic theocratic government.
In the pre-invasion discussions, the Bush people always seemed to discount the question, "But what if we liberate the Iraqi people and then they freely choose Islamic theocracy?" They said it would not happen because free people would never choose a theocracy over a democracy. In fact, they knew it would not happen, because they never intended to give the Iraqis that choice. I agree with not giving them that choice, because theocracy, like dictatorship, can never be freely chosen. To vote to submit to such dominance is to vote to be unfree.
The process now is for the Iraqis to work within the guidelines, admittedly established under overwhelming US influence, to establish the best Constitution they can under the circumstances prevailing. Scholarly examination of the history of Constitutional adoption from other nations, combined with free debate and open consideration of all viewpoints should be the foundation for working out agreements and compromises and ultimately arriving at the best possible consensus.
I am beginning a read of "Miracle at Philadelphia", Catherine Drinker Bowen’s account of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787. I have read a few books on the subject before, but as Bowen writes in her preface, "Considering the immense amount of literature on the subject, it is surprising how little the average American knows about the making of our Constitution." We may have a vision of the "Founding Fathers", flush with the success of the 13 colonies over the British in the Revolutionary War, harmoniously and spontaneously agreeing to our Constitution, as if by some almost divine guidance. But in fact, relations between the colonies were quite acrimonious and the Founders were more mindful of the differences between the colonies than of the similarities. Rhode Island, like most Sunnis in Iraq, chose not to participate in the process.
The initial appointment of an Iraqi governing council and the supposed turnover of sovereignty had little or no credibility, because of minimal Iraqi participation. This election, with large numbers of Iraqis choosing to vote, even with its obvious shortcomings, has much more credibility. The insurgents do not seem to have discouraged significant numbers of non-Sunni Iraqis from voting. We might hope this would take much wind out of the insurgent sails, but until sitting duck American troops can be replaced by adequately trained Iraqi forces, anti-American insurgents will continue the storm.
posted by Tom Blake | 2:20 PM
3 Comments:
The Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni group with fundmentalist overtones, says the Iraq election is illegitimate because Sunnis chose not to participate. Except in the handful of countries with mandatory voting, significant numbers of potential voters often choose not to participate in elections. Some people are just in general not personally motivated to participate in the electoral process. Others are cynical about the choices and use that as a reason for not participating. The cynical might be distinguished from the unmotivated if a "none of the above" option were included on the ballot, as is done in some places.
So why did most Sunnis not participate? Some may be classically unmotivated types. I don't think there was a "none of the above" option in the Iraq election, so some Sunnis were cynically on the sideline. But the biggest reason Sunnis did not participate was because groups such as the Association of Muslim Scholars told them not to, and other groups backed the call for a boycott with threats of vilent reprisals.
Boycotts are valid if there is a valid reason for the boycott, such as some alternative that has not been allowed to make it to the ballot. What alternatives did these boycotters propose for the ballot - return Saddam Hussein to dictatorship, or let the Association of Muslim Scholars establish a theocracy? No, they don't believe in elections in general, and even if they were voted into power by an election, theocrats would always fear being voted out. They believe theocracy is a divine plan, and elections are actually a denial of that plan (there can be no valid choice against God). They had no ballot alternative to offer, only an alternative to the electoral process - theocracy established by violence.
Tom,
I like your statement that there can be no valid choice against God. That sentiment is common to many religions and is used to justify some terrible practices. The terorism in Iraq is one example. The terrorism at abortion clinics in the US is another. On a much lesser scale are the attacks the National Endowment for the Arts endured. And the movement to protect the institution of marriage against gays is another, again on a much lesser scale, but still a sad situation for those directly involved.
I just finished a Teaching Company course on Martin Luther. Having been raised and educated through the college level as a Roman Catholic, my only knowledge of Luther was that he was a heretic and that he started the reformation. I married into a Lutheran family many years ago and just now decided it would be nice to know a little about Luther himself. But my (limited) impression is that very few Lutherans know much about him either.
Well, I was impressed by Luther's theology. He had a simple idea that he worked out after many years of desperate searching. The gospel, which in translation means good news, is good news for Christians, especially Christians, like Luther, who were terrified that they would not be saved. He said that Jesus said, "believe in me and you will be saved". (I'm not sure I've got the quote right.) If you don't believe that, then you are calling God a liar, and God doesn't lie. So this became Luther's theme: justification by faith alone. This is a positive example of "there can be no valid choice against God". My Catholic indoctrination leads me to embrace Luther on this point because it frees me from the suffocating teachings I endured.
But Luther also wrote some of the most vile attacks against the Jews. The attacks included explicit scatological references based on his belief that the Jews were lying about what God said, that they were choosing beliefs in opposition to what God said. So Luther, espousing that "there is no valid choice against God", called for burning the synagogues, and for destroying the homes of the Jews. A sad legacy of a very great man.
Are there any religions secure from this type of extremism? Not Islam, not Catholic, not Lutheran, not Morman. How about Jewish? How about Mennonite?
John from Phoenix
The big three western religions are monotheistic and their scriptures contain some wonderful words of peace but also many other references that have been used to justify war. Christians, Jews and Muslims all seem to have no problem going to war against each other and among themselves over issues related to their claimed understanding of God's will. After biblical times, Jews did not have a base of operations from which to launch war and they paid a price in persecutions, reaching a horrific zenith with the holocaust, but they have held there own in the war department since the founding of Israel.
I don't know much about eastern religions, some of which may be more accurately called philosophies, but one that I have studied a little, Buddhism, is non-theistic and makes great sense to me. To my knowledge, there is nothing in Buddhist tradition that justifies war and Buddhists have never engaged in war in the course of practicing Buddhism. The Dalai Lama is living embodiment of the peaceful Buddhist practice, even in face of communist China's brutal takeover of Tibet.
Christianity has some small sub-groups claiming fully peaceful beliefs, such as the Quakers. I am not sure whether such sub-groups currently exist in Judaism and Islam, though there are always isolated pacifists in most groups. Mennonites say they are Anabaptists, who are people with a supposedly radically different view of the what the Protestant Reformation really meant. For a brief history of Anabaptism, go to: http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/book/view/6.
I wonder if maybe God created another world out there somewhere, with no Garden of Eden to start, just a big bang and evolution, with humans who never arrived at the concept of a deity. Would that planet of atheists have lived more peacefully than ours has?
Post a Comment
<< Home