Sunday, December 26, 2004
Democracy, not Elections
The problems in Iraq cannot be solved by just by having elections. They can be solved by democracy. Elections will not work. Democracy will.
An increasing number of people are realizing that the coming elections in Iraq will not solve the multitude of prevailing problems. Some of the people and political parties that have fully cooperated with the US administration since the invasion have started asking for a postponement of the elections. These people hope that in, say, six months, Iraq will be stable enough for elections to take place. No justification is given for this belief. I can only see more of the same turmoil in the present path.
There have also been several proposals put forward to solve the present stand-off regarding these elections: putting aside some seats for Sunnis or for some Sunni-dominated areas currently in turmoil… and wait for better conditions to run elections in those areas. It will not work.
I have already outlined my objection to one of these proposals in response to a comment in a previous post in my blog. I will just reiterate it here: Putting aside a certain percentage or a certain number of seats for "Sunnis" and going ahead with the elections is not only impractical but quite dangerous.
1. Sunnis don't have any ID to show that they are Sunnis.
2. About half of Iraq is thoroughly mixed as I have outlined earlier. How can you allow some people in Baghdad for example to vote and not others? Remember that Baghdad has a quarter of the population of the entire country.
3. So many people of the "type" that should have a favorable effect on the process and that should be encouraged to be involved, eg the enlightened, the secular or the moderate will refuse to be simply labeled as "Sunnis"… and they shouldn't be.
4. If a "geographic" approach is attempted and the "Sunni" provinces of Anbar, Saladdin and Mosul are excluded, how do you deal with the other mixed provinces of Diala, Babel and with the sizable Sunni minority in Basra?
5. Such schemes cannot solve the enormous problem of mixed and contested Kirkuk.
6. Any assembly that leaves large segments of the population unrepresented will lack legitimacy in the eye of many. How can such an assembly possibly discuss the future shape of the country and write a constitution?
7. Elections themselves are not an end. They have to be part of the democratic process. Running an election "for its own sake" without the other components will not solve the problem.
8. Finally, such an approach is extremely dangerous in that it may further polarize the Iraqi society along Sunni – Shiite lines. I find this a recipe for a future civil war.
In any case, this line of reasoning naturally leads to treating different regions in Iraq individually. In contrast, the present rules of the game treat the whole of Iraq as one large constituency – something I frankly find unfortunate. Unfortunate to us it may well be… but quite understandable! It is basically designed to give some political parties and "chosen" individuals an edge.
Consider Mr. Chalabi for example. In a direct election, I would be surprised if he received more than a few thousand votes in the whole country. [In a BBC poll last year, he was found even more hated by Iraqis than Saddam Hussein!] However, by cleverly attaching himself to larger parties, and since he is the "senior" politician that he is, he managed to position himself at the top of their slate. This guarantees him a place at the new Congress. Quite a feat, isn't it? Well, not really! The system itself was designed for such people in the first place.
The only problem is that there are too many Iraqis who are too sly not to see through this scheme. Were this a game of some sort and not involving human life and human suffering, I would have taken the position to support this scheme as it is. When those elections are done, then those rejecting them will be joined by the majority of people. Alas, that would be an irresponsible, even reckless, stance.
Again, it is the "rules of the game" that are at fault, not the game itself. Democracy is not just about ballot boxes, it is about the will of the people.
There are no truly national parties or national political figures in Iraq at present. This is no coincidence. It has been the active policy of the previous regime for decades to produce just this result.
Also, Iraq as a country is far from uniform – there is such a wide spectrum of mentality, beliefs and modes of living. There is enormous diversity in the country.
But, again, democracy is all about the will of the people. So, how do you solve this problem?
It is a great advantage that Iraq is already administratively divided into 18 provinces and each province is further divided into smaller districts… all the way down to "neighborhoods". This was a feature of the highly centralized and totalitarian system of government that we had. This arrangement facilitated control. We can use it to an advantage! All the administrative details are there, on the ground. (For those interested in some details, my blog Rapid Democracy in Iraq gives some).
There are about 7000 of these micro-districts. Even the present "rules of the game" have 7000 polling stations.
Almost all of these small districts are uniform in one aspect or another (ethnic, sectarian, social, economic, etc.). Why not use a readily available feature? Why not make each of these neighborhoods an electoral district? The people in all these micro-districts know their borders.
There is no need for any administrative overhaul or even a census. Even campaigning will not be much of a problem. Due to the nature of the Iraqi society, where people are "connected" to other people and are not isolated little islands like many people in the West, people in these neighborhoods know each other; they generally know who the good guys are! They can select representatives in little time, with less fuss. I have seen it happen, first hand, on a number of occasions.
We need not worry about representing the various sects, Shiites, Sunnis, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Caldo-Assyrians, Yazidis, Subba, religious, secular, communist, etc. etc. it will all sort itself out rather fairly. No headache. Delegates of the people can battle over their differences in meeting halls using words (and even probably chairs) but not bombs and bullets. If ordinary people are convinced by the representation process, there will no longer be a question regarding legitimacy.
Isn't that what democracy is really about? Why is this unacceptable? And why doesn't it happen then?
The answer is simple. Simply consider who is going to lose control: the present "imported & imposed" people and, more important, the US administration. The motive of the first group is obvious, but what about the administration. Well, they simply cannot afford to do that. They cannot venture into such waters. Democracy in Iraq without control? It is almost unthinkable to them. Think of all those extremists and fanatics!
They are wrong of course.
If such a democracy succeeds, the elected assembly will be "anti-American", reflecting the mood of the country. But, after a while, and when the country is stable again, even children unborn yet will be grateful to America for making it all possible.
The basic assumption in all this is my unshaken belief that most Iraqis, like most other people, are basically moderate. Is the US administration willing to take that risk? So far, apparently not! Instead, they are leading my country and yours into "the abyss".
An increasing number of people are realizing that the coming elections in Iraq will not solve the multitude of prevailing problems. Some of the people and political parties that have fully cooperated with the US administration since the invasion have started asking for a postponement of the elections. These people hope that in, say, six months, Iraq will be stable enough for elections to take place. No justification is given for this belief. I can only see more of the same turmoil in the present path.
There have also been several proposals put forward to solve the present stand-off regarding these elections: putting aside some seats for Sunnis or for some Sunni-dominated areas currently in turmoil… and wait for better conditions to run elections in those areas. It will not work.
I have already outlined my objection to one of these proposals in response to a comment in a previous post in my blog. I will just reiterate it here: Putting aside a certain percentage or a certain number of seats for "Sunnis" and going ahead with the elections is not only impractical but quite dangerous.
1. Sunnis don't have any ID to show that they are Sunnis.
2. About half of Iraq is thoroughly mixed as I have outlined earlier. How can you allow some people in Baghdad for example to vote and not others? Remember that Baghdad has a quarter of the population of the entire country.
3. So many people of the "type" that should have a favorable effect on the process and that should be encouraged to be involved, eg the enlightened, the secular or the moderate will refuse to be simply labeled as "Sunnis"… and they shouldn't be.
4. If a "geographic" approach is attempted and the "Sunni" provinces of Anbar, Saladdin and Mosul are excluded, how do you deal with the other mixed provinces of Diala, Babel and with the sizable Sunni minority in Basra?
5. Such schemes cannot solve the enormous problem of mixed and contested Kirkuk.
6. Any assembly that leaves large segments of the population unrepresented will lack legitimacy in the eye of many. How can such an assembly possibly discuss the future shape of the country and write a constitution?
7. Elections themselves are not an end. They have to be part of the democratic process. Running an election "for its own sake" without the other components will not solve the problem.
8. Finally, such an approach is extremely dangerous in that it may further polarize the Iraqi society along Sunni – Shiite lines. I find this a recipe for a future civil war.
In any case, this line of reasoning naturally leads to treating different regions in Iraq individually. In contrast, the present rules of the game treat the whole of Iraq as one large constituency – something I frankly find unfortunate. Unfortunate to us it may well be… but quite understandable! It is basically designed to give some political parties and "chosen" individuals an edge.
Consider Mr. Chalabi for example. In a direct election, I would be surprised if he received more than a few thousand votes in the whole country. [In a BBC poll last year, he was found even more hated by Iraqis than Saddam Hussein!] However, by cleverly attaching himself to larger parties, and since he is the "senior" politician that he is, he managed to position himself at the top of their slate. This guarantees him a place at the new Congress. Quite a feat, isn't it? Well, not really! The system itself was designed for such people in the first place.
The only problem is that there are too many Iraqis who are too sly not to see through this scheme. Were this a game of some sort and not involving human life and human suffering, I would have taken the position to support this scheme as it is. When those elections are done, then those rejecting them will be joined by the majority of people. Alas, that would be an irresponsible, even reckless, stance.
Again, it is the "rules of the game" that are at fault, not the game itself. Democracy is not just about ballot boxes, it is about the will of the people.
There are no truly national parties or national political figures in Iraq at present. This is no coincidence. It has been the active policy of the previous regime for decades to produce just this result.
Also, Iraq as a country is far from uniform – there is such a wide spectrum of mentality, beliefs and modes of living. There is enormous diversity in the country.
But, again, democracy is all about the will of the people. So, how do you solve this problem?
It is a great advantage that Iraq is already administratively divided into 18 provinces and each province is further divided into smaller districts… all the way down to "neighborhoods". This was a feature of the highly centralized and totalitarian system of government that we had. This arrangement facilitated control. We can use it to an advantage! All the administrative details are there, on the ground. (For those interested in some details, my blog Rapid Democracy in Iraq gives some).
There are about 7000 of these micro-districts. Even the present "rules of the game" have 7000 polling stations.
Almost all of these small districts are uniform in one aspect or another (ethnic, sectarian, social, economic, etc.). Why not use a readily available feature? Why not make each of these neighborhoods an electoral district? The people in all these micro-districts know their borders.
There is no need for any administrative overhaul or even a census. Even campaigning will not be much of a problem. Due to the nature of the Iraqi society, where people are "connected" to other people and are not isolated little islands like many people in the West, people in these neighborhoods know each other; they generally know who the good guys are! They can select representatives in little time, with less fuss. I have seen it happen, first hand, on a number of occasions.
We need not worry about representing the various sects, Shiites, Sunnis, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Caldo-Assyrians, Yazidis, Subba, religious, secular, communist, etc. etc. it will all sort itself out rather fairly. No headache. Delegates of the people can battle over their differences in meeting halls using words (and even probably chairs) but not bombs and bullets. If ordinary people are convinced by the representation process, there will no longer be a question regarding legitimacy.
Isn't that what democracy is really about? Why is this unacceptable? And why doesn't it happen then?
The answer is simple. Simply consider who is going to lose control: the present "imported & imposed" people and, more important, the US administration. The motive of the first group is obvious, but what about the administration. Well, they simply cannot afford to do that. They cannot venture into such waters. Democracy in Iraq without control? It is almost unthinkable to them. Think of all those extremists and fanatics!
They are wrong of course.
If such a democracy succeeds, the elected assembly will be "anti-American", reflecting the mood of the country. But, after a while, and when the country is stable again, even children unborn yet will be grateful to America for making it all possible.
The basic assumption in all this is my unshaken belief that most Iraqis, like most other people, are basically moderate. Is the US administration willing to take that risk? So far, apparently not! Instead, they are leading my country and yours into "the abyss".
# posted by Abu Khaleel @ 1:35 PM 
Comments:
Hello Abu Khaleel,
I am rather like your 7000 man legislature but you don't have any political parties as such. All the current lists (prototype parties) are very quiet about their agendas, what they are promising to do for their voters, even though the iraqi people are greatly in need. In the West, bourgeoise parties are based around ideas, not ethnic or religious groups or personalities, though frequently they become identified with such groups. In the election it becomes a battle of ideas, with unpopular ideas becoming extinct and parties striving for popularity with new ideas or shifting positions. I can see the appeal of the Baathist party program of Arab socialism in that light. A clean government party would make sense. An islamic party as such seems too simplistic and maybe God should not be submitted to the 'battle of [earthly] ideas', however Catholic Parties in Europe generally restrict defer to tradition as much as possible and oppose socialists, seculars- so an Iraqi 'traditional' party would make sense. A liberal party would oppose limitations on personal freedom. A communist party would want to spread political and economic equality as far as possible. Democracy without the open battle of ideas before the voters seems rather sterile. Everyone despises the 'politicians' and their promises[lies] but people vote for ideas (equally detestable?) and sometimes[usually?] it's a coin toss. From what I hear there about 100 lists and the only one whose ideas I think I fully understand are the communists! I hear the Iraqi Independent Block favors reconciliation. The others represent a person, a religion or an ethnic group--not ideas per se. But there is absolutely no need to 'imitate' Western Democracy either.
_____________________________________________________________________
Keep in mind that in the cases of W. Germany, Japan and Korea, the US perceived a strategic interest in those nations becoming prosperous enough to counterbalance Russia and China.
In Iraq, Iran and Syria, the US perceives a strategic interest in those nations remaining weak and unstable enough that they can not counterbalance Israel.
So "bungling" their way to a civil war would not be, from a US point of view, as tragic as it would be to you.
The Americans are not on your side.
Sadr seemed from here like a nationalist and we've seen how the US reacted to him. So far Sistani seems like a collaborator - an Iraqi Sadat who is going to oversee the neutering of Iraq in exchange for a lifetime presidency, personal/family opportunities from corruption and a paper assembly.
The name "Allawi" speaks for itself.
It seems that the important thing now is to make sure that whoever is installed at the end of January and reaffirmed in December can actually be removed by Iraqis once the American troops leave.
Until then, people who want to see Iraq as weak and divided as possible hold all of the cards.
_____________________________________________________________________
Circular is back from holiday in a "news-free" zone, to find that he hasn’t missed much. But no news isn’t necessarily good news.
It’s a bit depressing to find Abu still plugging away at his "grassroots" locally based development of democracy theory. Doubtless given his knowledge and understanding of Iraqi realities it’s probably a good way to go, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon.
There is what seems to be a fairly authoritative and comprehensive analysis of the proposed electoral process at http://healingiraq.blogspot.com.
The irony seems to be that, whether or not this process was created with U.N. advice and Iraqi participation, it is a completely "proportional" proposal, right down to a compulsory percentage of women. (What about left-handed people?) Yet the real sponsor of the system, the U.S.A., has as I understand it absolutely no element of proportionality at all in its own system of government. Why don’t they want to mould their conquest in their own image? Too difficult to influence and control?
Probably doesn’t matter in the long run - if enough Iraqis think like Abu then theoretically this could be reflected in the constitution that will eventually be drawn up.
But can the whole over-complicated and confusing process ever actually get that far - 93 parties on the ballot, take your time in choosing one, keep your head down and ignore the mortar shells coming through the roof while you vote?
On the positive side, Rumsfeld has apparently told the troops that they’ll only be there another 4 or 5 years. Given his accuracy record to date, they should all be home in 4 or 5 months?
I cling to my theory that the approach of the Bush administration will be to hail any election at all - even if it's just for the Baghdad dog-catcher - as vindication of their misguided invasion, and very rapidly bug out. And not try Empire again.
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear Abu Khaleel
I posted your article in Iraq War in order to improve our discussion. Please, see the comments.
Thanks in advance.
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu Khaleel:
I understand your preference for a more "grass roots" style democracy since such systems have many advantages over the single national list proportional system that was chosen. However, there are some disadvantages to your proposal.
For example, would the majority of candidates really agree that the current districting boundaries are fair? I would foresee trouble in the North were Kurds claim to have been displaced from their ancestral homes by Saddam's policy of forced Arabization of strategic areas such as Kirkuk. A single national list avoids these thorny issues. Also, a 700 member national assembly would be extremely inefficient due to its size alone.
It seems to me that no democratic system is perfect. All of them seem to share the goal of ascertaining and expressing the true political will of "the people." In doing so in a practical manner, compromises must be made. For a good discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a number of proposed electoral systems, please see the report at the following url: http://www.iprospect.org.uk/rep12may.html . I don't know much about the group that authored the report, Iraqi Prospect Organization, but the analysis seems fairly straight forward and objective.
The authors of the report concluded that:
"In weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of Provincial List PR against the modified Single Non-Transferable Vote, it is clear the former is simpler to administer and avoids any new border delineations while the later is better suited for a country lacking a well defined political party system and provides a stronger link between constituents and their Member of Parliament."
What about a Provincial list PR system? It has the virtue of being somewhat more regional in scope and avoiding regional under representation due to low turnout or boycott in certain areas. It also seems quite similar to the system advocated by Abbas Khadim in a recent article. Your thoughts?
_____________________________________________________________________
"Hello" Anon,
I share your confusion at the mosaic of "coalitions" that have mushroomed. Some of them are quite contradictory in basic doctrine!! There is actually some oblique logic to it all which would be interesting to discuss in some detail sometime.
By the way, I agree with your remark regarding Iraqi super patriots. Do you want me to post something on that? I'm sure you would find it rather dull!!! But to be truthful, I agree. I think I was a bit coy there! But have noticed the total absence of your American super patriots on that post? Perhaps defense is not their strongest "virtue".
I was also touched by your Gilgamesh quote. It was what inspired my last post on the Glimpse of Iraq Blog.
______________________________
Circular,
Welcome back. You have no idea how long it has been since I last had a holiday. I envy you! I hesitated before getting involved in the comment section again. However, I couldn't really give you the satisfaction of winning your bet within less than a week!! Can we call this one an exception? (If you promise to refrain from claiming victory)
I was actually tempted several times before this one, particularly during the excellent discussion you had with Mark a couple of posts back on why these people blow themselves up. You actually asked what is probably the most important question so far this century. So much depends on how American administrations will attempt to find answers.
I was tempted again when you were so obviously discouraged over the Fallujah Harrison Ford movie to the extent of not feeling so "circular". Well, you didn't sound much "oval" to me either…you sounded more like a dented circle, or a wrecked bicycle tire. Besides, this is an Iraqi blog… and we have our sovereignty (!!!) You can't change your name just like that! We have special rituals for that kind of stuff in Iraq. Over and above, you may remember that I suggested the name Spiral so early. Had you chosen that other name, none of this would have happened.
By the way, Zeyad's account at Healing Iraq is an excellent one.
I agree with you that my repetition of the "grass roots" thing is depressing. I think it was Bruno who said that I will find myself repeating myself over and over. The problem is that I cannot see any other non-violent solution yet. Until then, I'll keep hammering! Perhaps one day…
I think I have done it again... celebrating anti-American remarks!! Some people never learn.
______________________________
Alvaro,
I have just been to your site. Thank you very much… but I couldn't find the comments.
______________________________
Anon above,
The scheme is outlined in more detail in the blog I referred to. I do not advocate a 700 or a 7000 strong assembly. The "grass roots" phase is only the first stage of the process. The questions you raise are valid ones and I hope that I have addressed them there.
Regarding displaced Kurds, in either scheme they can select their representatives. In my proposal, they have an option of selecting people they really want and to break away from the domination of the present two larger parties… about which many Kurds have some reservations.
I hope that you will find that the whole thing is designed for Iraq and for the Iraqi people as they are now, not as we wish them to be. I have always said that I am sure I personally would not like the outcome… but only the people's reps have the right to "design" Iraq. Spend some time to have a look.
_____________________________________________________________________
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
_____________________________________________________________________
Oops, forgot that last bit was on there, can you remove it?
Thanks-Hello-Anonymous
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Khaleel,
Sorry for being so flip about your hard work in 'Rapid Democracy in Iraq'. Like the inept social planners at the CPA, I really haven't a clue about what would work in Iraq. It certainly is very democratic and de-centralized but strives to preserve your mosaic society-really the best new idea. If this awful violence ends and reason and reconciliation get more popular, I think that Iraq's oil wealth could certainly fund this political system, so it from a money viewpoint it is certainly possible. With the advanced state of technology I think decentralized government will be much more practical than anyone may expect.
But you do seem rather uncomfortable with political parties and their problems. I can't think many nations with no political parties (Saudi?), so that may be my blindspot.
I really wish the Iraqi people could get a break from the misery and feel good about themselves and their country. I can't see that happening with a damned fool occupation going on. Americans want to feel good about themselves and what they are doing for Iraq-but that's not important at all. Some bloggers are saying that elections don't mean anything-I disagree, it will mean the occupation is over, followed by removal of US troops. Nothing has surprised Americans more than the ability of Iraqis to get avoid civil war. So is the message, 'Thanks but no thanks Bush we'll be fine'? The elections will tell us about that also.
_____________________________________________________________________
Abu
Welcome back yourself, don’t worry I won’t gloat. Actually I think your active participation adds a lot to the Blog, although obviously time available is a factor. Perhaps an occasional visit is good.* The worrying thing is that the "super patriots" seem to have vanished, there’s no one to argue with!
Along the lines of "democracy not elections," I seem to recall some time ago producing the thought that elections don’t produce democracy, democracy produces elections. (Somebody actually agreed with me, too!)
Further uninformed musing leads me to wonder whether part of the problem is seeing democracy as an end in itself, which a lot of U.S. posters seem to do. This ties in with the "democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others" theme.
Can’t we say that the goal of any human society is to function well, in the best interests of all its members? We’re all descended ultimately from small hunter-gatherer family groups/tribes, and that’s what they did for hundreds of thousands of years. And functioning well always depended partly on adapting to the environment. Hunter-gatherers have difficulties during droughts, and democracies depend on a minimal level of security, stability and order.
In terms of Iraq, the environment at present - aftermath of a ruthless and divisive dictatorship, of three ruinous wars, the most bungled occupation in history, conquerors with mixed motives to put it charitably, economic meltdown - is so hostile that it seems almost impossible for the Iraqi "tribe" to function well.
Without being "Anti-American," which is apparently an indictable offence these days, I would be very interested in any comments or speculations on whether these elections in the midst of chaos are likely to produce anything worthwhile, or whether Iraq needs security, stability and order before it needs democracy?
* Like a Deus ex Machina. Reminds me of my favorite toilet graffiti, in a theological college:
- god is dead -
- OH NO I’M NOT !!! -
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
Read Thomas Friedman's, "Worth a Thousand Words" at the New York Times site.
So who are the good guys in this world? I listen to so many, so good at smart and snappy diagnosis, so good at playing my God is better than your God. The world needs a great leader capable of breaking through the noise, greed, and manipulation all sides are subjected to within their own camps.
Or maybe we're just doomed to fight a never-ending cycle of civilization vs. civilization wars.
http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman
_____________________________________________________________________
Sadly,
This blog has now started to depart decidedly from reality, and has become little more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the insurgency.
I won't be visiting it often in the future.
_____________________________________________________________________
Gone quiet again.
I wonder who is being accused by Sadly of writing "propaganda for the insurgency?" Can’t be Abu - he opposes the insurgency. Can’t be me - I’m neutral. Perhaps it’s just anyone who can spell "mistake."
Expanding on my thought above, I would like to repeat that democracy does not seem to me to be an end in itself, merely a means to an end, which is presumably the good or just society - that’s what we all want in the long run. (Abu mentioned benevolent dictatorship in a previous Blog, as one way to go, and perhaps there have been some such somewhere in the past - I just can’t think of any really good examples.)
So, forget the WMD and ties to Al Qaeda, forget getting rid of Saddam, what the U.S. is really trying to do is install a good and just society in Iraq? (And free, mustn’t forget that - Freedom and Democracy is what it’s all about.)
What are the chances? Can anyone do that, even the mightiest country in the world? On the cheap?
Are they facilitating the growth of democracy in Iraq, or just trying to impose it against the odds?
Circular
_____________________________________________________________________
Dear Abu Khaleel:
What you think about this letter?
Thanks in advance,
Alvaro Frota
Letter from Iraqi Patriotic Alliance addressed to our brothers and sisters all around the world
Nada Al-Rubaiee, on behalf of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance (IPA)
The Iraqi Resistance is confronting the illegitimate and brutal Zionist Imperialist occupation of Iraq. Our resistance is legitimate according to international law and the UN Charter, including the right to resort to armed means. We are claiming our right to national self-determination and a real sovereignty.
The different resisting groups in Iraq have developed a network between each other in order to achieve their ultimate goal. This goal was clearly addressed in their political program released after the liberation of Fallujah in April this year (2004). The program of the Iraqi resistance is as follows:
1. End the occupation and liberate the country
2. Transition period of 2 years
3. Iraqi united- National government for all
4. Iraqi constitution written by Iraqis themselves
5. Democratic rules
6. Free election and full participation of the different political parties
To implement the strategy of liberation, the Iraqi resistance is attacking occupying forces and their institutions and those who serve them with food, oil and other supplies. On the other hand, the Iraqi resistance is preventing the occupiers from using Oil as a political means.
Schools, churches, mosques and other civilian places have never been the target of the Iraqi resistance. Besides, we have to be very critical and careful about any kidnapping or killing process of a foreigner-worker in Iraq. The resistance has no benefit in attacking people like Margaret Hassan, two Simona’s or others. These actions are meant to discredit the legal resistance of our people.
Here, we would like to share with you some of the heroic achievements of the Iraqi resistance:
The Iraqi resistance was able to cause a high number of casualties in material and soldiers among the occupying forces.
The resistance fighters were able to liberate 30 cities: creating a suitable environment for the resistant fighters by forming a death-zone for the occupying forces and their agents.
The Iraqi resistance has defeated the Spanish imperialism and has forced 9 out of the occupying/ allying countries to leave Iraq. The Netherlands, Hungary and Poland are leaving Iraq next year.
The Iraqi resistance was able to pull plunder companies out of Iraq; the so-called contractors “rebuilding companies”.
The Iraqi resistance has renewed the spirit of resistance in the whole world by defeating the US imperialism in Fallujah, AlSamawa, Najaf and other Iraqi cities.
The heroic resistance in Iraq has isolated UK and US in Iraq, preventing temporary the go-on of the “war on terror” against: Syria, Cuba and North Korea.
The resistance in Iraq is the resistance of the Iraqi people and it is mainly represented by the major political groups; the Patriotic, Islamic and the Pan-Arab groups.
By this, we want to emphasis on the fact that our resistance has an anti-imperialistic profile with Islamic and patriotic elements. Adding on that, the effective participation of members of the dismantled Iraqi army and the Ba’ath party.
We could expect some objections about the participation of the Ba’ath party in the resistance. There are more than three million active Ba’ath party members in Iraq. So, when we mention members of this party we do not mean – only - those who were in the former Iraqi government. But those who believe in the Ba’ath ideology expressed in their slogan: Unity, Liberty and socialism.
The fear of the Islamic character of the Iraqi resistance could be answered by the fact that after the liberation of Iraq, the Iraqi resistance will then be the only legitimized representative of the Iraqi people. A transition period will then give the Iraqi people the chance to choose their representatives to form a united national government with full participation of all parties including the Islamic forces. We have then to accept the choice of the Iraqi people.
As to the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance, we are proud to inform you that our secretary general in Iraq Mr. Abduljabbar al-Kubaysi was arrested on 3rd of September in Baghdad. The house he had temporarily stayed in was surrounded and stormed by about 50 US occupation soldiers employing helicopters and tanks. Mr. Al-Kubaysi was leading the IPA since the 90’s against the economic sanctions and the Zionistic and imperialistic plans of the US in Iraq. During his latest activities building a united political front of the resistance against the occupation, he was arrested without any charges. At this moment we know nothing about his situation. Even his family is unable to contact hem. We hold the occupying forces responsible for the health and life of Mr. Al-Kubaysi and all other prisoners in Iraq.
We hope for further coordination between you and us in our shared struggle against occupation and imperialism.
Long lives the Iraqi Resistance
In Solidarity,
Nada Al-Rubaiee on behalf of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance (IPA)
Al-Moharer
_____________________________________________________________________
This is the meaning of Democracy as defined by the USA:
Hundreds of thousands of Israelis can vote in Iraqi electionsCharles: It seems you are somewhat desperate because the words Iraqui Resistance (RPG, IED, VIED, AK, KIA, WIA, MIA, etcetera) are sending to USA are doing their job...
_____________________________________________________________________
How you doing
Just dropping by to say I just came from your blog. I found it to be very interesting.
Regards
lincoln cents
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment
<< Home
Hello Abu Khaleel,
I am rather like your 7000 man legislature but you don't have any political parties as such. All the current lists (prototype parties) are very quiet about their agendas, what they are promising to do for their voters, even though the iraqi people are greatly in need. In the West, bourgeoise parties are based around ideas, not ethnic or religious groups or personalities, though frequently they become identified with such groups. In the election it becomes a battle of ideas, with unpopular ideas becoming extinct and parties striving for popularity with new ideas or shifting positions. I can see the appeal of the Baathist party program of Arab socialism in that light. A clean government party would make sense. An islamic party as such seems too simplistic and maybe God should not be submitted to the 'battle of [earthly] ideas', however Catholic Parties in Europe generally restrict defer to tradition as much as possible and oppose socialists, seculars- so an Iraqi 'traditional' party would make sense. A liberal party would oppose limitations on personal freedom. A communist party would want to spread political and economic equality as far as possible. Democracy without the open battle of ideas before the voters seems rather sterile. Everyone despises the 'politicians' and their promises[lies] but people vote for ideas (equally detestable?) and sometimes[usually?] it's a coin toss. From what I hear there about 100 lists and the only one whose ideas I think I fully understand are the communists! I hear the Iraqi Independent Block favors reconciliation. The others represent a person, a religion or an ethnic group--not ideas per se. But there is absolutely no need to 'imitate' Western Democracy either.
# posted by 
: 26/12/04 8:44 PM
: 26/12/04 8:44 PM Keep in mind that in the cases of W. Germany, Japan and Korea, the US perceived a strategic interest in those nations becoming prosperous enough to counterbalance Russia and China.
In Iraq, Iran and Syria, the US perceives a strategic interest in those nations remaining weak and unstable enough that they can not counterbalance Israel.
So "bungling" their way to a civil war would not be, from a US point of view, as tragic as it would be to you.
The Americans are not on your side.
Sadr seemed from here like a nationalist and we've seen how the US reacted to him. So far Sistani seems like a collaborator - an Iraqi Sadat who is going to oversee the neutering of Iraq in exchange for a lifetime presidency, personal/family opportunities from corruption and a paper assembly.
The name "Allawi" speaks for itself.
It seems that the important thing now is to make sure that whoever is installed at the end of January and reaffirmed in December can actually be removed by Iraqis once the American troops leave.
Until then, people who want to see Iraq as weak and divided as possible hold all of the cards.
# posted by : 27/12/04 1:07 AM
: 27/12/04 1:07 AM Circular is back from holiday in a "news-free" zone, to find that he hasn’t missed much. But no news isn’t necessarily good news.
It’s a bit depressing to find Abu still plugging away at his "grassroots" locally based development of democracy theory. Doubtless given his knowledge and understanding of Iraqi realities it’s probably a good way to go, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon.
There is what seems to be a fairly authoritative and comprehensive analysis of the proposed electoral process at http://healingiraq.blogspot.com.
The irony seems to be that, whether or not this process was created with U.N. advice and Iraqi participation, it is a completely "proportional" proposal, right down to a compulsory percentage of women. (What about left-handed people?) Yet the real sponsor of the system, the U.S.A., has as I understand it absolutely no element of proportionality at all in its own system of government. Why don’t they want to mould their conquest in their own image? Too difficult to influence and control?
Probably doesn’t matter in the long run - if enough Iraqis think like Abu then theoretically this could be reflected in the constitution that will eventually be drawn up.
But can the whole over-complicated and confusing process ever actually get that far - 93 parties on the ballot, take your time in choosing one, keep your head down and ignore the mortar shells coming through the roof while you vote?
On the positive side, Rumsfeld has apparently told the troops that they’ll only be there another 4 or 5 years. Given his accuracy record to date, they should all be home in 4 or 5 months?
I cling to my theory that the approach of the Bush administration will be to hail any election at all - even if it's just for the Baghdad dog-catcher - as vindication of their misguided invasion, and very rapidly bug out. And not try Empire again.
# posted by : 27/12/04 1:55 PM
: 27/12/04 1:55 PM Dear Abu Khaleel
I posted your article in Iraq War in order to improve our discussion. Please, see the comments.
Thanks in advance.
Abu Khaleel:
I understand your preference for a more "grass roots" style democracy since such systems have many advantages over the single national list proportional system that was chosen. However, there are some disadvantages to your proposal.
For example, would the majority of candidates really agree that the current districting boundaries are fair? I would foresee trouble in the North were Kurds claim to have been displaced from their ancestral homes by Saddam's policy of forced Arabization of strategic areas such as Kirkuk. A single national list avoids these thorny issues. Also, a 700 member national assembly would be extremely inefficient due to its size alone.
It seems to me that no democratic system is perfect. All of them seem to share the goal of ascertaining and expressing the true political will of "the people." In doing so in a practical manner, compromises must be made. For a good discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a number of proposed electoral systems, please see the report at the following url: http://www.iprospect.org.uk/rep12may.html . I don't know much about the group that authored the report, Iraqi Prospect Organization, but the analysis seems fairly straight forward and objective.
The authors of the report concluded that:
"In weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of Provincial List PR against the modified Single Non-Transferable Vote, it is clear the former is simpler to administer and avoids any new border delineations while the later is better suited for a country lacking a well defined political party system and provides a stronger link between constituents and their Member of Parliament."
What about a Provincial list PR system? It has the virtue of being somewhat more regional in scope and avoiding regional under representation due to low turnout or boycott in certain areas. It also seems quite similar to the system advocated by Abbas Khadim in a recent article. Your thoughts?
# posted by : 27/12/04 10:00 PM
: 27/12/04 10:00 PM "Hello" Anon,
I share your confusion at the mosaic of "coalitions" that have mushroomed. Some of them are quite contradictory in basic doctrine!! There is actually some oblique logic to it all which would be interesting to discuss in some detail sometime.
By the way, I agree with your remark regarding Iraqi super patriots. Do you want me to post something on that? I'm sure you would find it rather dull!!! But to be truthful, I agree. I think I was a bit coy there! But have noticed the total absence of your American super patriots on that post? Perhaps defense is not their strongest "virtue".
I was also touched by your Gilgamesh quote. It was what inspired my last post on the Glimpse of Iraq Blog.
______________________________
Circular,
Welcome back. You have no idea how long it has been since I last had a holiday. I envy you! I hesitated before getting involved in the comment section again. However, I couldn't really give you the satisfaction of winning your bet within less than a week!! Can we call this one an exception? (If you promise to refrain from claiming victory)
I was actually tempted several times before this one, particularly during the excellent discussion you had with Mark a couple of posts back on why these people blow themselves up. You actually asked what is probably the most important question so far this century. So much depends on how American administrations will attempt to find answers.
I was tempted again when you were so obviously discouraged over the Fallujah Harrison Ford movie to the extent of not feeling so "circular". Well, you didn't sound much "oval" to me either…you sounded more like a dented circle, or a wrecked bicycle tire. Besides, this is an Iraqi blog… and we have our sovereignty (!!!) You can't change your name just like that! We have special rituals for that kind of stuff in Iraq. Over and above, you may remember that I suggested the name Spiral so early. Had you chosen that other name, none of this would have happened.
By the way, Zeyad's account at Healing Iraq is an excellent one.
I agree with you that my repetition of the "grass roots" thing is depressing. I think it was Bruno who said that I will find myself repeating myself over and over. The problem is that I cannot see any other non-violent solution yet. Until then, I'll keep hammering! Perhaps one day…
I think I have done it again... celebrating anti-American remarks!! Some people never learn.
______________________________
Alvaro,
I have just been to your site. Thank you very much… but I couldn't find the comments.
______________________________
Anon above,
The scheme is outlined in more detail in the blog I referred to. I do not advocate a 700 or a 7000 strong assembly. The "grass roots" phase is only the first stage of the process. The questions you raise are valid ones and I hope that I have addressed them there.
Regarding displaced Kurds, in either scheme they can select their representatives. In my proposal, they have an option of selecting people they really want and to break away from the domination of the present two larger parties… about which many Kurds have some reservations.
I hope that you will find that the whole thing is designed for Iraq and for the Iraqi people as they are now, not as we wish them to be. I have always said that I am sure I personally would not like the outcome… but only the people's reps have the right to "design" Iraq. Spend some time to have a look.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
# posted by : 28/12/04 7:40 AM
: 28/12/04 7:40 AM Oops, forgot that last bit was on there, can you remove it?
Thanks-Hello-Anonymous
# posted by : 28/12/04 7:47 AM
: 28/12/04 7:47 AM Hello Abu Khaleel,
Sorry for being so flip about your hard work in 'Rapid Democracy in Iraq'. Like the inept social planners at the CPA, I really haven't a clue about what would work in Iraq. It certainly is very democratic and de-centralized but strives to preserve your mosaic society-really the best new idea. If this awful violence ends and reason and reconciliation get more popular, I think that Iraq's oil wealth could certainly fund this political system, so it from a money viewpoint it is certainly possible. With the advanced state of technology I think decentralized government will be much more practical than anyone may expect.
But you do seem rather uncomfortable with political parties and their problems. I can't think many nations with no political parties (Saudi?), so that may be my blindspot.
I really wish the Iraqi people could get a break from the misery and feel good about themselves and their country. I can't see that happening with a damned fool occupation going on. Americans want to feel good about themselves and what they are doing for Iraq-but that's not important at all. Some bloggers are saying that elections don't mean anything-I disagree, it will mean the occupation is over, followed by removal of US troops. Nothing has surprised Americans more than the ability of Iraqis to get avoid civil war. So is the message, 'Thanks but no thanks Bush we'll be fine'? The elections will tell us about that also.
# posted by : 28/12/04 10:36 AM
: 28/12/04 10:36 AM Abu
Welcome back yourself, don’t worry I won’t gloat. Actually I think your active participation adds a lot to the Blog, although obviously time available is a factor. Perhaps an occasional visit is good.* The worrying thing is that the "super patriots" seem to have vanished, there’s no one to argue with!
Along the lines of "democracy not elections," I seem to recall some time ago producing the thought that elections don’t produce democracy, democracy produces elections. (Somebody actually agreed with me, too!)
Further uninformed musing leads me to wonder whether part of the problem is seeing democracy as an end in itself, which a lot of U.S. posters seem to do. This ties in with the "democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others" theme.
Can’t we say that the goal of any human society is to function well, in the best interests of all its members? We’re all descended ultimately from small hunter-gatherer family groups/tribes, and that’s what they did for hundreds of thousands of years. And functioning well always depended partly on adapting to the environment. Hunter-gatherers have difficulties during droughts, and democracies depend on a minimal level of security, stability and order.
In terms of Iraq, the environment at present - aftermath of a ruthless and divisive dictatorship, of three ruinous wars, the most bungled occupation in history, conquerors with mixed motives to put it charitably, economic meltdown - is so hostile that it seems almost impossible for the Iraqi "tribe" to function well.
Without being "Anti-American," which is apparently an indictable offence these days, I would be very interested in any comments or speculations on whether these elections in the midst of chaos are likely to produce anything worthwhile, or whether Iraq needs security, stability and order before it needs democracy?
* Like a Deus ex Machina. Reminds me of my favorite toilet graffiti, in a theological college:
- god is dead -
- OH NO I’M NOT !!! -
Circular
# posted by : 28/12/04 2:08 PM
: 28/12/04 2:08 PM Read Thomas Friedman's, "Worth a Thousand Words" at the New York Times site.
So who are the good guys in this world? I listen to so many, so good at smart and snappy diagnosis, so good at playing my God is better than your God. The world needs a great leader capable of breaking through the noise, greed, and manipulation all sides are subjected to within their own camps.
Or maybe we're just doomed to fight a never-ending cycle of civilization vs. civilization wars.
http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman
# posted by : 29/12/04 2:38 AM
: 29/12/04 2:38 AM Sadly,
This blog has now started to depart decidedly from reality, and has become little more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the insurgency.
I won't be visiting it often in the future.
# posted by : 29/12/04 3:29 AM
: 29/12/04 3:29 AM Gone quiet again.
I wonder who is being accused by Sadly of writing "propaganda for the insurgency?" Can’t be Abu - he opposes the insurgency. Can’t be me - I’m neutral. Perhaps it’s just anyone who can spell "mistake."
Expanding on my thought above, I would like to repeat that democracy does not seem to me to be an end in itself, merely a means to an end, which is presumably the good or just society - that’s what we all want in the long run. (Abu mentioned benevolent dictatorship in a previous Blog, as one way to go, and perhaps there have been some such somewhere in the past - I just can’t think of any really good examples.)
So, forget the WMD and ties to Al Qaeda, forget getting rid of Saddam, what the U.S. is really trying to do is install a good and just society in Iraq? (And free, mustn’t forget that - Freedom and Democracy is what it’s all about.)
What are the chances? Can anyone do that, even the mightiest country in the world? On the cheap?
Are they facilitating the growth of democracy in Iraq, or just trying to impose it against the odds?
Circular
# posted by : 30/12/04 2:37 PM
: 30/12/04 2:37 PM Dear Abu Khaleel:
What you think about this letter?
Thanks in advance,
Alvaro Frota
Letter from Iraqi Patriotic Alliance addressed to our brothers and sisters all around the world
Nada Al-Rubaiee, on behalf of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance (IPA)
The Iraqi Resistance is confronting the illegitimate and brutal Zionist Imperialist occupation of Iraq. Our resistance is legitimate according to international law and the UN Charter, including the right to resort to armed means. We are claiming our right to national self-determination and a real sovereignty.
The different resisting groups in Iraq have developed a network between each other in order to achieve their ultimate goal. This goal was clearly addressed in their political program released after the liberation of Fallujah in April this year (2004). The program of the Iraqi resistance is as follows:
1. End the occupation and liberate the country
2. Transition period of 2 years
3. Iraqi united- National government for all
4. Iraqi constitution written by Iraqis themselves
5. Democratic rules
6. Free election and full participation of the different political parties
To implement the strategy of liberation, the Iraqi resistance is attacking occupying forces and their institutions and those who serve them with food, oil and other supplies. On the other hand, the Iraqi resistance is preventing the occupiers from using Oil as a political means.
Schools, churches, mosques and other civilian places have never been the target of the Iraqi resistance. Besides, we have to be very critical and careful about any kidnapping or killing process of a foreigner-worker in Iraq. The resistance has no benefit in attacking people like Margaret Hassan, two Simona’s or others. These actions are meant to discredit the legal resistance of our people.
Here, we would like to share with you some of the heroic achievements of the Iraqi resistance:
The Iraqi resistance was able to cause a high number of casualties in material and soldiers among the occupying forces.
The resistance fighters were able to liberate 30 cities: creating a suitable environment for the resistant fighters by forming a death-zone for the occupying forces and their agents.
The Iraqi resistance has defeated the Spanish imperialism and has forced 9 out of the occupying/ allying countries to leave Iraq. The Netherlands, Hungary and Poland are leaving Iraq next year.
The Iraqi resistance was able to pull plunder companies out of Iraq; the so-called contractors “rebuilding companies”.
The Iraqi resistance has renewed the spirit of resistance in the whole world by defeating the US imperialism in Fallujah, AlSamawa, Najaf and other Iraqi cities.
The heroic resistance in Iraq has isolated UK and US in Iraq, preventing temporary the go-on of the “war on terror” against: Syria, Cuba and North Korea.
The resistance in Iraq is the resistance of the Iraqi people and it is mainly represented by the major political groups; the Patriotic, Islamic and the Pan-Arab groups.
By this, we want to emphasis on the fact that our resistance has an anti-imperialistic profile with Islamic and patriotic elements. Adding on that, the effective participation of members of the dismantled Iraqi army and the Ba’ath party.
We could expect some objections about the participation of the Ba’ath party in the resistance. There are more than three million active Ba’ath party members in Iraq. So, when we mention members of this party we do not mean – only - those who were in the former Iraqi government. But those who believe in the Ba’ath ideology expressed in their slogan: Unity, Liberty and socialism.
The fear of the Islamic character of the Iraqi resistance could be answered by the fact that after the liberation of Iraq, the Iraqi resistance will then be the only legitimized representative of the Iraqi people. A transition period will then give the Iraqi people the chance to choose their representatives to form a united national government with full participation of all parties including the Islamic forces. We have then to accept the choice of the Iraqi people.
As to the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance, we are proud to inform you that our secretary general in Iraq Mr. Abduljabbar al-Kubaysi was arrested on 3rd of September in Baghdad. The house he had temporarily stayed in was surrounded and stormed by about 50 US occupation soldiers employing helicopters and tanks. Mr. Al-Kubaysi was leading the IPA since the 90’s against the economic sanctions and the Zionistic and imperialistic plans of the US in Iraq. During his latest activities building a united political front of the resistance against the occupation, he was arrested without any charges. At this moment we know nothing about his situation. Even his family is unable to contact hem. We hold the occupying forces responsible for the health and life of Mr. Al-Kubaysi and all other prisoners in Iraq.
We hope for further coordination between you and us in our shared struggle against occupation and imperialism.
Long lives the Iraqi Resistance
In Solidarity,
Nada Al-Rubaiee on behalf of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance (IPA)
Al-Moharer
This is the meaning of Democracy as defined by the USA:
Hundreds of thousands of Israelis can vote in Iraqi electionsCharles: It seems you are somewhat desperate because the words Iraqui Resistance (RPG, IED, VIED, AK, KIA, WIA, MIA, etcetera) are sending to USA are doing their job...
How you doing
Just dropping by to say I just came from your blog. I found it to be very interesting.
Regards
lincoln cents
# posted by : 24/1/06 10:38 AM
: 24/1/06 10:38 AM << Home
