How can an election held under an occupation by a hostile invader be fair?

[bigtree]

I don't think it can. Not even in the most remote sense.

I understand the feelings of joy and relief that Iraqis who vote must feel. They are acting out one of the most important expressions of collective concern that modern man has managed. But it is a sham. It is a horribly skewed process. It is a lie. Iraqis are being used for Bush's stagecraft.

It's not that I firmly believe that no good can come out of the voting. IF the Shiite majority accepts the anticipated shift in seats that an increased Sunni participation could produce, and IF the Shiite majority does more than give a shrug to the Sunni amendments to the constitution (as they agreed to) that are anticipated, and IF the Shiites and Kurds in the majority halt their new army's assaults on opposition territory, some power-sharing agreement that brings the parties together may occur. But, the process is false, and we are the main corrupter of it.

There was no mandate, no invitation from the Iraqis for us to invade them. We bombed their country's infrastructure into a pre-industrial state, we indiscriminately bombed and killed thousands of innocent civilians in our drive to consolidate power there. We installed an interim government that had a clear advantage in the elections that we sponsored, monitored, and controlled access to. There is not free movement throughout Iraq. The new government's military, described by Sunnis as a death squad, has been actively engaged in hunting down and retaliating against opponents of the Shiite dominated authority.

There can be no free election under our occupation. There can be no free election as long as the U.S. continues to exercise the heavy hand of our military against opposition groups, and continues to bully the new Iraqi authority into allegiance to our aims and ambitions.

[Nobody]

1. US? Fair elections?

You mean the fairness of Florida 2000 and Diebold 2004? These people don't give a rat's ass about fair. Republicans can win by a nose but Dems had better win by a country mile.

[mattclearing]

2. It can't. n/t

[smoogatz]

3. You already said it. It can't.

Any government that's elected in such circumstances is, de facto, a puppet of the U.S. It would depend on U.S. military support for its survival--and is therefore obliged to kowtow to Bushco's agenda, whatever the hell that is. What they won't do is fairly and honestly represent the interests of the Iraqi people, who have apparently been cursed by God to live under the rule of lunatics, halfwits and sadists.

[Flirtus]

4. how can they call it a 'free' election

when everyone in Iraq is under a strict, multi-day curfew?

[dkofos]

5. If no one voted in Iraq,

they would still spin it as a great moment in democracy for the Iraqi's.

[enigma000]

6. It's as fair as the Iraqis want it to be

The fairness and legitimacy of this election is for the Iraqis to determine. Should 10 million Iraqis line up to vote tomorrow, does this not make it fair? If they can choose who to vote for, does it not make the vote free? The hundreds of candidates campaigning in this election, especially the Sunni ones who are under constant threat of death, are they but pawns in a grander game? Does the world community’s blessings on this election not give it a mandate? When this new government is sworn in weeks from now, will it be no more than just a sham or will it be the true representatives of the people?

Is this a free and fair election? I'll let the Iraqis be the judge of that.

[bigtree]

8. You ignore the fact that the U.S. military has its foot on their throats

This is sad. Of course there will be some form of authority that emerges from the stacked process. Iraqis will have to live with that or resist any way they can. I don't think you have to be an Iraqi to judge the fairness of the process, any more than the world is justified in regarding our own presidential election as a sham.

So, they act out the play of democracy with the stage and props that have been set by America. Iraqis, the poor victims of Bush's rape, impregnated with the seed of his violence, are forced to carry the product of his abuse to term and call it their own.

Perfect jingoistic logic.

[enigma000]

13. But why act out this play?

If this is no more than a grotesque charade why would the Iraqis participate? Why would they, in keeping with your analogy, not visit the abortion clinic? - which would be the case if they opted to boycott these elections or vote for decidedly anti-occupation parties.

[bigtree]

14. why do we vote here in an election that many think is rigged by machines

and mischief?

Hope. And, I acknowledge that hope in my o/p. It doesn't make the election more fair. Look at the outcome of our own debacle that saw the Supreme Court stop the counting of ballots to assure the ascendancy of Bush. Look at what has happened to our country as he has ruled. The corruption that brought him into office has infected all of government.

Iraqis should assert their own will within this process, within all aspects of the political landscape that is developing. That is a brave act in such a turbulent, violent atmosphere. It is also a necessary act if, one day, they hope to have a chance to regain control over their own destiny without the heavy handed influence and interference of America and our military. They have to work through the process as well as they can.

But how can anyone who knows a wit about the workings and influences of government be sanguine about the spectre of the U.S. destruction of a sovereign nation's country and government, and the same marauding military overseeing and shepherding it's replacement. Notwithstanding Bush's own blather about spreading democracy, we are witnessing imperialism at it's worse. Everything about our invasion and occupation of Iraq follows almost any definition of a rouge nation bent on oppression and domination. Why should any view of the events in Iraq, including the subsequent elections, be immune from concern and alarm about the immorality and poisoning corruption of this type of military expansionism?

We should, celebrate the bravery of the individuals who hope to salvage their country out of the shards we have laid at their feet. Their efforts may, someday, bring the factions in Iraq together. But, that won't make the election fair.

[enigma000]

16. A very articulate argument you have there Mr. Bigtree

I suppose fair would, by definition, necessitate full Iraqi control over this election process to prevent fraud and a guarantee the new government would be able to act of its own volition. Neither of these conditions is present.

I guess we are left with hope. Hope is what will motivate the Iraqis tomorrow and what will keep us focused on our TVs tomorrow, and in the days to come..........

[Just Me]

7. Who said "freedom" and "democracy" were fair?

x(

[bigtree]

10. "I care not by what measure you end the war."

"If you allow one single germ, one single seed of slavery to remain in the soil of America, whatever may be your object, depend upon it, as true as effect follows cause, that germ will spring up, that noxious weed will thrive, and again stifle the growth, wither the leaves, blast the flowers, and poison the fair fruits of freedom."

Ernestine L. Rose (1810–1892), U.S. suffragist and abolitionist.

[Just Me]

12. Weeds, indeed, still fester and smother.

;(

Wonderful quote albeit so sobering!!!

[leftofthedial]

9. why do you hate freedom?

we are just assisting the forces of democracy to ensure that the Iraqi people vote (correctly).

Everyone we approve of (with close ties to Halliburton) is allowed to run for office and they will ensure that the hopes and aspirations of the Iraqi people (insofar as they intersect with those of Halliburton and the Carlyle Group) will come to fruition.

[Silverhair]

11. Let's hope for the best.

Instead of rejecting the election before it happens, let's hope that it can be the beginning of democracy.

BTW - Japan, German, and Italy held their post WWII elections under occupation. So it can happen.

Also, I notice that your set of "if"s requires the Shiites to do all the giving. Don't you place some obligation on the Sunnis also?

[bigtree]

15. Fair enough. Sunnis need to stay committed, as all do, to the process

they have been offered, if they are to wrest back control of their political destiny. But, I can't ignore that our military has been engaged in 'anti-insurgency' campaigns along with the Shia-dominated army units. I regard these activities as suppression of those Sunni factions which have been reported to have been affected. A great deal of this has occured since the last election. The Kurds have been no more tolerant. They've also been involved in skirmishes with these groups. All of this directed from a central authority propped up by our military. Maybe Bush didn't intend this, but the natural instinct of the Sunni against the installed authority in the beginning kept them from a working measure of representation in the new authority and in the constitution. There has been an agreement to allow the Sunnis to offer amendments to the constitution. I hope those who were responsible for the original document allow the amendments to be adopted to allow the Sunnis to achieve a greater measure of control over their own territory and get an equal share of revenue and resources. That is not the case now.

[AllegroRondo]

17. The same thing was said about Lebanon

earlier this year, that was why the Bush admin wanted Syria out before elections were held.

[bigtree]

18. one small difference, I haven't completely thought it through . . .

the Syrians were initially invited in to save the hides of the Christians from Shiite Hezbollah guerillas by standing their forces between the combatants.

But, it is the same logic that should make it clear to Bush that free and fair exercise of democracy can only occur in an atmosphere free of oppression. We are the aggressor in Iraq. We weren't invited in. We are still engaged in hostile military actions against Iraqis. Bush knows this. There will always be a double standard to his application of democratic mores. His might, in his eyes, makes right.

[bigtree]

19. No elections will be credible while occupation continues

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1667430,00.html

thanks, kpete.