How to interpret the results of Iraq's elections?
Some say not to bother. Given violence on election day, an absence of respected international observation, widespread allegations of fraud from numerous angles, the hiding of candidates' names, and the continued presence of the U.S.-led occupying forces, elections are meaningless, a show our government put on to legitimize its presence and their actions. The results should be disregarded.
There are problems with this view. For one, a popular campaign by Iraqis pushed for these elections; they were not really the brainchild of the occupiers. In addition, whatever problems the elections had, Washington's selected leader Iyad Allawi was not the elected leader.
The results parallel what so many expected based on their assessment of the scene on the ground.
We have a sense of the positions of those who voted, and some vaguer sense of the positions of those who boycotted.
Others suggest that the Iraqi election is a great step forward for Iraq and the region, that we have brought democracy to the Arab world. With the election results now in, Iraq can now move forward in implementing the platforms the voters chose.
But, in addition to the already mentioned objections to the elections' validity, there is another major flaw in the optimists' view: The current agendas of the elected parties do not necessarily reflect their campaign positions. The election's largest winner, the United Iraqi Alliance, is perhaps the best illustration.
On Dec. 23, the UIA published its platform in the Iraqi newspaper al-Adalah. It called for democratic government, Islam as the state religion and human rights for all. But before any of these, the platform declared:
First, the Iraq that we want:
1. A united Iraq - land and people - with full national sovereignty.
2. A timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq.
Having wooed so many of the masses with these positions, and being known as the alliance endorsed by ever-popular Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the UIA leaders went back on the second of these principles. Only five days before the election, they transformed their platform demand for a timetable into a undetailed suggestion that they do want the occupation of their country to end some day.
This is not the violation of campaign promises we have grown accustomed to in a normal representative government. This is betrayal of the highest order. And it spells disaster: When we consider the UIA's 48 percent showing in the election, and the substantial size of the boycotters, it becomes clear that a solid majority of Iraqis have expressed their opposition to the occupation and are certain to see it not get translated into a reality.
There is no particular reason to suppose that withdrawing from Iraq will lead to great things. The horrors of much of the post-colonial world - from civil wars to dictatorships as bad as the West's worse - testify to this fact. It remains clear, though, that the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq is contrary to the will of the people.
We should leave, particularly now that we have elections giving us a mandate to depart.
Douglas is a Plan II senior.
Be the first to comment on this article!