Isam al-Khafaji, Director of Iraq Revenue Watch
I think the elections should be held back.
I am concerned that Iraqi Sunnis are being excluded from the vote as the Sunni provinces are the ones worst affected by violence and Sunni parties are boycotting the election.
Whether the past government was dominated by Sunnis or not, it is very dangerous to launch a path into democracy by telling the Arab Sunnis that the new Iraq will treat you as a block, as a minority that was oppressing the rest of Iraqis, because most of them will say we had nothing to do with that regime.
I think things have gone so far now that we won’t have a legitimate government from these elections and all that will happen is that Iraqi society will become even more polarised.
You have to open dialogue with the ordinary Sunni Iraqis, giving them the message that that we are all equal citizens now.
The view that the elections must go ahead as planned is an arrogant one. When Mr Bush and Mr Blair come to Baghdad to say “we” will hold the elections, they are telling the Iraqis that “we” will decide what “we” think is good for you. They are saying our troops are in a mess and that is the major issue for the election.
My biggest fear is that ordinary Sunnis will be pushed towards the extremists if they are sidelined in the elections. This is the worst thing that can happen and that’s why I’m hoping it can be delayed.
But it’s not only the Sunni areas that are in danger. With the reign of militias, even the non-Sunni regions are not seeing and will not see fair and free campaigning. Evidence of this is that not a single participating group has presented the full names of all its candidates for fear of their assassination.
The danger of civil war is very real. But the trigger may well be disputes between Kurdish and Turcoman groups centring in Kirkuk and who would have the right to vote there rather than Sunni/Shia differences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayder Al-Fekaiki, Iraqi Volunteer and Iraqi Sport
I will certainly be taking part in the Iraqi elections. It is my and every Iraqi’s unalienable right to be part of what could be a highly blemished but nevertheless positive step for a vast number of Iraqis to express their will – something that we have been denied for decades.
Democracy and its institutions are never created overnight but develop in a context of socio-economic stability, traditions of tolerance and a nation’s sense of self and sovereignty. All of these are unachievable under conditions of occupation, international terror and armed resistance.
Regardless of its makeup, the next Iraqi government will unfortunately remain largely ineffectual and impotent – buried under the weight of the American political single-mindedness and military might on the one hand and the unrelenting, increasingly well-financed and organised threat of violence and terror on the other.
Despite all this, I remain realistically hopeful that with a few more such “test runs” in democratic process, Iraqis can and will sow the seeds to secure a relatively successful democratic tradition in future Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usama Shabibi, Pharmacist
As an Iraqi who fled the tyranny of Saddam Hussein’s regime thirty years ago and now living in England, I have my reservations in participating in the 30 January elections.
Besides the fact that Iraq, being under occupation, is not a sovereign country, my main objection is due to the lack of security. The Oxford dictionary defines “security” as safety and freedom from danger.
How can you have free elections when a country is under martial law, shops closed, people’s movements are sharply restricted, and with kidnapping and murder occurring on a daily basis? How can you have a fair and democratic election when hundreds of thousands of second generation Iraqis abroad are allowed to vote while millions of Iraqis inside will not venture to go to the polling stations?
I fully understand and sympathise with those inside Iraq who look forward to this month’s vote and also fully condemn any attempts to sabotage their freedom to elect. I strongly oppose any violence against any Iraqi civilians from all sides in Iraq, whether occupying forces or extremist groups. However, I think a fully democratic election is far fetched now under the present situation in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tahrir Abdul Samad Numan, Iraqi exile and peace activist
In principle, I am for holding elections in Iraq. In fact I wanted them to be held before the “handover”. (What handover?). This dubious process could do long term damage to the evolution of real democracy in Iraq. But what will these elections mean to the ordinary Iraqi?
Allawi has already given us the good news: “it is going to get worse after the elections”! Elections are supposed to be a mechanism for empowering the Iraqis to make choices. Are there any real choices for the Iraqis at present?
Allawi’s government failed to provide Iraqis with the security necessary to hold the elections in accordance with the interim constitution. The main opponents of Allawi’s list are already serving in the Interim Government. What are their achievements?
Since the American invasion women generally do not leave their home unless they have to. Will they risk their lives, standing in a queue outside a polling station?
With only 10% of Fallujah refugees having returned to their devastated city and a significant number of Iraqis not having the opportunity to register let alone vote, I think it is inappropriate for Iraqi exiles to take part.
Will it be free and fair? I very much doubt it. Iraq has been under the rule of martial law for the last two months. Muqtada al-Sadr has complained about arrests (without warrants) of his supporters and that four of them died under torture in Iraqi police custody.
Will the elections produce legitimacy? That also is doubtful. If a significant number of Iraqis are excluded from this process, then the results will not be seen as legitimate.
Why was Fallujah destroyed so near to the time of the elections? What has it actually achieved apart from the antagonism of most Sunnis? Was this deliberate?
I find it interesting that the US never leaned on its allies, the Kurdish leadership, to face the electorate in order to renew their long expired mandate.
The Kurdish leadership held elections (which were not observed by independent international monitors) in 1992. Then they started to kill each other!
The Palestinians had eight hundred independent monitors for their recent elections. How many will there be in Iraq? About thirty, I think!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Munir Chalabi, Activist
I have a lot of reservations about the elections, but a political process is needed to end the violence in Iraq. The majority of Iraqis want an end to the violence and terrorism; they see the elections as their only way out.
I don’t expect these problems to be resolved on 30 January, but there will be some kind of turning point, though of course it will depend on what actually happens at the elections.
If the Americans and their men, like Iyad Allawi, fix the vote, then the violence will just get worse – that’s for definite. And it will also encourage groups, like the Shias – who have mostly restrained from violence – to take part.
Because Allawi has the police and army in his arms, he will try his best to fix here and there, so he will have some votes. But I do not believe there will be a single majority to any one list. There will be a mixture of two or three lists that do well: the Kurdish list, a list for Sistani (or supporters of Sistani), and if the Islamic Party decides to participate, they will take a lot of votes – but from the Sunnis.
The elections have to take place, and they mustn’t be delayed because that will only continue the violence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Shames, Iraqi Prospect Organisation
I’m a presiding officer at one of the stations here at the exhibition hall in Wembley, London where registration for out-of-country voting is taking place. In three days we have registered around 4,000 Iraqis.
I disagree that the elections should be postponed. There is never a wrong time to start a democratic process. Here at Wembley we are seeing really extraordinary examples of Iraqis coming to vote. I’ve registered an 85 year-old woman and her 65 year-old daughter; two brothers who came all the way from Dublin, and they’re coming again on election day to cast their vote; also in one day ten disabled Iraqi people in wheelchairs, all from different parts of London.
By having a chance to vote, these people really feel they are taking things into their own hands. The Iraqi people know what is best for them, and they have a chance now to choose their own government and participate: they are determined to have their say. Most of these people are voting for the first time and they don’t want to miss the chance, even the tiniest opportunity. We have registered people from many different backgrounds. I can tell you also that there is no definite boycott by any specific ethnicity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayub Nuri, Journalist
I am not going to vote. I don’t think this is a fair election as Iraq is still an occupied country, by the Americans and in the south, the British. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, nothing in this country has been legitimate.
Right from the beginning, when the Americans created the Iraqi Governing Council, which became the current Iraqi interim government with Iyad Allawi as prime minister, the Iraqi people were kept unaware of the process of political development in their own country. At the end of the day, the Americans and the Iraqi opposition leaders were behind the curtains, killing the Iraqi people.
What Iraq really needs right now is not elections, but basic things like security and water. I have travelled throughout Iraq, from the south to the north and have talked to many different people, and they’re all saying the same thing. They don’t care if Iraq is ruled by Muslims or Christians, Shias or Sunnis for whatever period of time. All they want is security so they can get on with their daily lives. Nobody feels safe in Iraq, and elections will not make any change to their actual daily life.
The Americans are saying to the world “this is an election for an Iraqi government and then we are going to leave”, but that isn’t enough. The insurgents, the Sunni militants, are not going to stop attacking the government if they accuse it of being American appointed. The Americans must make sure that there is very good police and security. They have to start working on these issues before they do anything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luay Abdulilah
Iraq is heading towards a great historical event. It could be the most significant one since the early 1920s when the new state was founded. For the first time since 1953 (when the results were annulled because a dozen candidates belonging to opposition parties were elected!), Iraq will hold its first free election. The majority of Iraqis will have a chance to say what they want, though for security purposes and to prevent assassination of candidates, voters will elect “lists” that represent single parties or coalitions, rather than individuals representing different parties.
The effect of this election on the Middle East will be gigantic, bearing in mind that no free elections have ever been conducted (with the exception of Israel and Iran before the conservatives took control) in this whole area.
Perhaps this is why we can see some dubious alliances between some past archenemies, such as the Iranian conservatives and the Wahabi members of al-Qaida, to fight an unholy war against the potential of any basic democracy that might emerge from the crucible Iraq has been locked in for the last 18 months.
All of Iraq’s neighbours have worries about the success of democracy in Iraq. Even Jordan, which has shown interest in helping Iraq to recover, is still hosting some senior figures from the former Iraqi regime.
Historically, any change in Iraq had sweeping effects on the political establishment in Syria. When I travelled from Baghdad to Damascus last November I strongly felt the difference between a liberal Iraq and a dated Stalin-style Damascus.
No matter what the outcome of the election Iran will be the loser. Once Iraq becomes stable and prosperous, the religious authority will return from the Iranian holy city of Qum to Najaf. This could lead to the end of the religious hegemony the conservative Iranians have been exerting to justify their authoritarian rule against any opposition.
There are also enemies of democracy inside Iraq. A small but well organized front to obstruct the election by pushing towards a civil war. By committing the most horrendous crimes the groups, engaged in these destructive acts, want to say to 95% of the population who want the election: You will see nothing of that. You will have a wasteland by 30 January: a lot of killings of innocent people, of destroying the essential infrastructure and of continuous intimidation to all groups that believe in democracy and pluralism: Your life will be hell.
Iraqis have to live with the consequences of the blunders the Bush administration has committed since the fall of Baghdad (dissolving the traditional Iraqi army of half a million soldiers for example). But the sacrifices they are enduring to make the election a success is the price of freedom they have to pay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fadhil Assultani, poet
Before I left Iraq twenty-six years ago, I was asked in an interview about my dream, and I replied immediately: “I am dreaming of a ballot box”. At the time this simple dream felt completely surreal.
Now, for the first time, we have the right to choose our representatives, and participate in forming the future of our country. For us Iraqis this election is the most decisive moment in our modern history.
But it has come at a high price: hundreds of mass graves; thousands disappeared, tortured and executed; millions forced to exile; and three wars in just one generation.
Who doesn’t want these elections to happen? The same people who caused these atrocities, in a new alliance with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida supporters in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi, who is responsible for some of the most barbaric massacres against innocent people, has declared war on the Iraqi people: “candidates in the election are seeking to become demi-gods while those who vote for them are infidels”.
But despite such threats and violence, it will not be al-Zarqawi or the remnants of Saddam’s regime who will make the future of Iraq.
Who will win the election? The Iraqi people will win.
I think the elections should be held back.
I am concerned that Iraqi Sunnis are being excluded from the vote as the Sunni provinces are the ones worst affected by violence and Sunni parties are boycotting the election.
Whether the past government was dominated by Sunnis or not, it is very dangerous to launch a path into democracy by telling the Arab Sunnis that the new Iraq will treat you as a block, as a minority that was oppressing the rest of Iraqis, because most of them will say we had nothing to do with that regime.
I think things have gone so far now that we won’t have a legitimate government from these elections and all that will happen is that Iraqi society will become even more polarised.
You have to open dialogue with the ordinary Sunni Iraqis, giving them the message that that we are all equal citizens now.
The view that the elections must go ahead as planned is an arrogant one. When Mr Bush and Mr Blair come to Baghdad to say “we” will hold the elections, they are telling the Iraqis that “we” will decide what “we” think is good for you. They are saying our troops are in a mess and that is the major issue for the election.
My biggest fear is that ordinary Sunnis will be pushed towards the extremists if they are sidelined in the elections. This is the worst thing that can happen and that’s why I’m hoping it can be delayed.
But it’s not only the Sunni areas that are in danger. With the reign of militias, even the non-Sunni regions are not seeing and will not see fair and free campaigning. Evidence of this is that not a single participating group has presented the full names of all its candidates for fear of their assassination.
The danger of civil war is very real. But the trigger may well be disputes between Kurdish and Turcoman groups centring in Kirkuk and who would have the right to vote there rather than Sunni/Shia differences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hayder Al-Fekaiki, Iraqi Volunteer and Iraqi Sport
I will certainly be taking part in the Iraqi elections. It is my and every Iraqi’s unalienable right to be part of what could be a highly blemished but nevertheless positive step for a vast number of Iraqis to express their will – something that we have been denied for decades.
Democracy and its institutions are never created overnight but develop in a context of socio-economic stability, traditions of tolerance and a nation’s sense of self and sovereignty. All of these are unachievable under conditions of occupation, international terror and armed resistance.
Regardless of its makeup, the next Iraqi government will unfortunately remain largely ineffectual and impotent – buried under the weight of the American political single-mindedness and military might on the one hand and the unrelenting, increasingly well-financed and organised threat of violence and terror on the other.
Despite all this, I remain realistically hopeful that with a few more such “test runs” in democratic process, Iraqis can and will sow the seeds to secure a relatively successful democratic tradition in future Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usama Shabibi, Pharmacist
As an Iraqi who fled the tyranny of Saddam Hussein’s regime thirty years ago and now living in England, I have my reservations in participating in the 30 January elections.
Besides the fact that Iraq, being under occupation, is not a sovereign country, my main objection is due to the lack of security. The Oxford dictionary defines “security” as safety and freedom from danger.
How can you have free elections when a country is under martial law, shops closed, people’s movements are sharply restricted, and with kidnapping and murder occurring on a daily basis? How can you have a fair and democratic election when hundreds of thousands of second generation Iraqis abroad are allowed to vote while millions of Iraqis inside will not venture to go to the polling stations?
I fully understand and sympathise with those inside Iraq who look forward to this month’s vote and also fully condemn any attempts to sabotage their freedom to elect. I strongly oppose any violence against any Iraqi civilians from all sides in Iraq, whether occupying forces or extremist groups. However, I think a fully democratic election is far fetched now under the present situation in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tahrir Abdul Samad Numan, Iraqi exile and peace activist
In principle, I am for holding elections in Iraq. In fact I wanted them to be held before the “handover”. (What handover?). This dubious process could do long term damage to the evolution of real democracy in Iraq. But what will these elections mean to the ordinary Iraqi?
Allawi has already given us the good news: “it is going to get worse after the elections”! Elections are supposed to be a mechanism for empowering the Iraqis to make choices. Are there any real choices for the Iraqis at present?
Allawi’s government failed to provide Iraqis with the security necessary to hold the elections in accordance with the interim constitution. The main opponents of Allawi’s list are already serving in the Interim Government. What are their achievements?
Since the American invasion women generally do not leave their home unless they have to. Will they risk their lives, standing in a queue outside a polling station?
With only 10% of Fallujah refugees having returned to their devastated city and a significant number of Iraqis not having the opportunity to register let alone vote, I think it is inappropriate for Iraqi exiles to take part.
Will it be free and fair? I very much doubt it. Iraq has been under the rule of martial law for the last two months. Muqtada al-Sadr has complained about arrests (without warrants) of his supporters and that four of them died under torture in Iraqi police custody.
Will the elections produce legitimacy? That also is doubtful. If a significant number of Iraqis are excluded from this process, then the results will not be seen as legitimate.
Why was Fallujah destroyed so near to the time of the elections? What has it actually achieved apart from the antagonism of most Sunnis? Was this deliberate?
I find it interesting that the US never leaned on its allies, the Kurdish leadership, to face the electorate in order to renew their long expired mandate.
The Kurdish leadership held elections (which were not observed by independent international monitors) in 1992. Then they started to kill each other!
The Palestinians had eight hundred independent monitors for their recent elections. How many will there be in Iraq? About thirty, I think!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Munir Chalabi, Activist
I have a lot of reservations about the elections, but a political process is needed to end the violence in Iraq. The majority of Iraqis want an end to the violence and terrorism; they see the elections as their only way out.
I don’t expect these problems to be resolved on 30 January, but there will be some kind of turning point, though of course it will depend on what actually happens at the elections.
If the Americans and their men, like Iyad Allawi, fix the vote, then the violence will just get worse – that’s for definite. And it will also encourage groups, like the Shias – who have mostly restrained from violence – to take part.
Because Allawi has the police and army in his arms, he will try his best to fix here and there, so he will have some votes. But I do not believe there will be a single majority to any one list. There will be a mixture of two or three lists that do well: the Kurdish list, a list for Sistani (or supporters of Sistani), and if the Islamic Party decides to participate, they will take a lot of votes – but from the Sunnis.
The elections have to take place, and they mustn’t be delayed because that will only continue the violence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Shames, Iraqi Prospect Organisation
I’m a presiding officer at one of the stations here at the exhibition hall in Wembley, London where registration for out-of-country voting is taking place. In three days we have registered around 4,000 Iraqis.
I disagree that the elections should be postponed. There is never a wrong time to start a democratic process. Here at Wembley we are seeing really extraordinary examples of Iraqis coming to vote. I’ve registered an 85 year-old woman and her 65 year-old daughter; two brothers who came all the way from Dublin, and they’re coming again on election day to cast their vote; also in one day ten disabled Iraqi people in wheelchairs, all from different parts of London.
By having a chance to vote, these people really feel they are taking things into their own hands. The Iraqi people know what is best for them, and they have a chance now to choose their own government and participate: they are determined to have their say. Most of these people are voting for the first time and they don’t want to miss the chance, even the tiniest opportunity. We have registered people from many different backgrounds. I can tell you also that there is no definite boycott by any specific ethnicity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayub Nuri, Journalist
I am not going to vote. I don’t think this is a fair election as Iraq is still an occupied country, by the Americans and in the south, the British. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, nothing in this country has been legitimate.
Right from the beginning, when the Americans created the Iraqi Governing Council, which became the current Iraqi interim government with Iyad Allawi as prime minister, the Iraqi people were kept unaware of the process of political development in their own country. At the end of the day, the Americans and the Iraqi opposition leaders were behind the curtains, killing the Iraqi people.
What Iraq really needs right now is not elections, but basic things like security and water. I have travelled throughout Iraq, from the south to the north and have talked to many different people, and they’re all saying the same thing. They don’t care if Iraq is ruled by Muslims or Christians, Shias or Sunnis for whatever period of time. All they want is security so they can get on with their daily lives. Nobody feels safe in Iraq, and elections will not make any change to their actual daily life.
The Americans are saying to the world “this is an election for an Iraqi government and then we are going to leave”, but that isn’t enough. The insurgents, the Sunni militants, are not going to stop attacking the government if they accuse it of being American appointed. The Americans must make sure that there is very good police and security. They have to start working on these issues before they do anything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luay Abdulilah
Iraq is heading towards a great historical event. It could be the most significant one since the early 1920s when the new state was founded. For the first time since 1953 (when the results were annulled because a dozen candidates belonging to opposition parties were elected!), Iraq will hold its first free election. The majority of Iraqis will have a chance to say what they want, though for security purposes and to prevent assassination of candidates, voters will elect “lists” that represent single parties or coalitions, rather than individuals representing different parties.
The effect of this election on the Middle East will be gigantic, bearing in mind that no free elections have ever been conducted (with the exception of Israel and Iran before the conservatives took control) in this whole area.
Perhaps this is why we can see some dubious alliances between some past archenemies, such as the Iranian conservatives and the Wahabi members of al-Qaida, to fight an unholy war against the potential of any basic democracy that might emerge from the crucible Iraq has been locked in for the last 18 months.
All of Iraq’s neighbours have worries about the success of democracy in Iraq. Even Jordan, which has shown interest in helping Iraq to recover, is still hosting some senior figures from the former Iraqi regime.
Historically, any change in Iraq had sweeping effects on the political establishment in Syria. When I travelled from Baghdad to Damascus last November I strongly felt the difference between a liberal Iraq and a dated Stalin-style Damascus.
No matter what the outcome of the election Iran will be the loser. Once Iraq becomes stable and prosperous, the religious authority will return from the Iranian holy city of Qum to Najaf. This could lead to the end of the religious hegemony the conservative Iranians have been exerting to justify their authoritarian rule against any opposition.
There are also enemies of democracy inside Iraq. A small but well organized front to obstruct the election by pushing towards a civil war. By committing the most horrendous crimes the groups, engaged in these destructive acts, want to say to 95% of the population who want the election: You will see nothing of that. You will have a wasteland by 30 January: a lot of killings of innocent people, of destroying the essential infrastructure and of continuous intimidation to all groups that believe in democracy and pluralism: Your life will be hell.
Iraqis have to live with the consequences of the blunders the Bush administration has committed since the fall of Baghdad (dissolving the traditional Iraqi army of half a million soldiers for example). But the sacrifices they are enduring to make the election a success is the price of freedom they have to pay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fadhil Assultani, poet
Before I left Iraq twenty-six years ago, I was asked in an interview about my dream, and I replied immediately: “I am dreaming of a ballot box”. At the time this simple dream felt completely surreal.
Now, for the first time, we have the right to choose our representatives, and participate in forming the future of our country. For us Iraqis this election is the most decisive moment in our modern history.
But it has come at a high price: hundreds of mass graves; thousands disappeared, tortured and executed; millions forced to exile; and three wars in just one generation.
Who doesn’t want these elections to happen? The same people who caused these atrocities, in a new alliance with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaida supporters in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi, who is responsible for some of the most barbaric massacres against innocent people, has declared war on the Iraqi people: “candidates in the election are seeking to become demi-gods while those who vote for them are infidels”.
But despite such threats and violence, it will not be al-Zarqawi or the remnants of Saddam’s regime who will make the future of Iraq.
Who will win the election? The Iraqi people will win.
Comments
Display the following comment