Is it Really Democratic Elections?

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Stravo
Official SD.Net Teller of Tales
Posts: 12806
Joined: 2002-07-08 12:06pm
Location: NYC

Is it Really Democratic Elections?

Post by Stravo »

When the news gushes over democratic elections are they being dishonest with the public? Let us take two past elections and one upcoming election.

The Elections in Afghanistan - they have universally been described as democratic at most the negative commentray has been limited to 'troubled' and 'sporadic claims of fraud'. The UN IIRC wasn't too happy with the way it was run and some candidates were protesting bitterly the way voting was done. Harmid Karzai wins the elections - but could there be any doubt? He was the one the US chose to run with, the one that showed up at the White House, whose name was mentioned on every newscast about Afghanistan. He was the US puppet. How could he NOT be elected if his was the only face and name everyone saw and heard.

The Elections in Palestine - OK, the guy is the handpicked successor to the strong man that ran the Palestinan Territories for generations. Did anyone even know if there were opponenets running against him? Can this farce truly be called a democratic election?

The Elections in Iraq - Alawi. We laugh everytime we see Bush roll that name off his torpid tongue. But we see the puppet effect again. Alawi - Karzai. If all the Iraqi people see is Alawi and his stooges what real choices do they have? If Rummy is saying that as long as 50% of people get their votes counted that's 'good enough' is that democracy in action? Can these truly be called democratic elections?

So in essence what I'm asking is whether democratic elections is really just the trappings and not the true essence - that as long as people vote that's good enough. That a real playing field with real choices is not really neccessary - that just being told your vote matters and seeing brown people enter election booths is 'good enough'

Is the news and the administration truly being honest when they talk about democratic elections?
Wherever you go, there you are.

Ripped Shirt Monkey - BOTMWriter's Guild Cybertron's Finest Justice League
This updated sig brought to you by JME2
Image
User avatar
Chmee
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4449
Joined: 2004-12-23 03:29pm
Location: Seattle - we already buried Hendrix ... Kurt who?

Post by Chmee »

The Palestinian election was probably fairer and more peaceful than anyone could reasonably have hoped for in the circumstances ... Barghouti got almost 20% of the vote.

Iraq's a different matter ... if the Sunnis stick to their boycott, the results will be so unrepresentative of the country's demographics that I can't see the election doing much to stabilize the country. The fact that an ex-pat dealer like Alawi is 'our guy' is discouraging to say the least.
[img=right]http://www.tallguyz.com/imagelib/chmeesig.jpg[/img]My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but
Mrs. Spade didn't raise any children dippy enough to
make guesses in front of a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, and a stenographer
.

Sam Spade, "The Maltese Falcon"

Operation Freedom Fry
User avatar
Ace Pace
Hardware Lover
Posts: 8456
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:04am
Location: Wasting time instead of money
Contact:

Re: Is it Really Democratic Elections?

Post by Ace Pace »

Stravo wrote:The Elections in Palestine - OK, the guy is the handpicked successor to the strong man that ran the Palestinan Territories for generations. Did anyone even know if there were opponenets running against him? Can this farce truly be called a democratic election?
Going by memory, there was atleast one other serious candidate, Mohammad Barguti, and there was the Hamas candidate, the first is a household name in Palestine and Israel, in Israel in the context of mastermind of several suicide bombings though.
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Post by Lord Zentei »

It's the improvement that's important: now there is a prescedent that leaders are chosen by the people and not by their clique. Sure, these elections were far from perfect, but they were elections and now there will (hopefully) be an ongoing improvement. Social change is an evolutionary process. Revolutions are merely the climaxes thereof.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by irishmick79 »

I really don't know too much about the Afghan elections, other than the fact that they actually happened. They could very well have been loaded with unethical conduct and unfair representation, but since the administration really isn't saying much about them other than "they went great, isn't it wonderful they're actually havng them?", I really don't know what to think. Nobody in the American press seems eager to press the administration for details, so I doubt we will get a truly accurate picture of what happened in Afghanistan for a number of years.

I don't see how the elections in Iraq aren't going to be a complete disaster. The insurgents are going to be doing absolutely everything they can to discourage people from voting, and from what I've read, they've already been moderately successful. If some areas aren't allowed to vote like Allawi is suggesting, that is gonna start riots and more violence in those areas that get blocked out. The last thing Iraq needs is an administration that is unrepresentative of Iraq's population, and that is probably what we are going to get - unless the Bush administration completely rigs the election, which I wouldn't put past them.
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
Admiral_K
Worthless Trolling Palm-Fucker
Posts: 560
Joined: 2002-08-09 01:51pm

Post by Admiral_K »

Chmee wrote:The Palestinian election was probably fairer and more peaceful than anyone could reasonably have hoped for in the circumstances ... Barghouti got almost 20% of the vote.

Iraq's a different matter ... if the Sunnis stick to their boycott, the results will be so unrepresentative of the country's demographics that I can't see the election doing much to stabilize the country. The fact that an ex-pat dealer like Alawi is 'our guy' is discouraging to say the least.
Obviously this isn't going to be ideal. However, those that don't vote in the election are essentially stating that they prefer a dictatorship, which for all intents and purposes is what they will get when the rest of the country chooses a leader. After all, was Saddam's rule "representative of the country's demographic"?
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Hell, even our elections are not representative. You can theoretically have a party gain a landslide victory in a multi-party system by getting 30% of the vote, as long as every other party gets less than 30% in most of the regions. Similarly, low voter turnout can mean that the vote is not necessarily representative of what everyone thinks, and with some voters having to stand in line for hours in certain places, one must wonder how many people don't bother to vote just because it's a pain in the ass.

But you can't get too hung up on the question of how democratic something is. If a country is moving toward greater human rights, less violence, and a more prosperous economy, it's moving in the right direction.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Admiral_K
Worthless Trolling Palm-Fucker
Posts: 560
Joined: 2002-08-09 01:51pm

Post by Admiral_K »

Darth Wong wrote:Hell, even our elections are not representative. You can theoretically have a party gain a landslide victory in a multi-party system by getting 30% of the vote, as long as every other party gets less than 30% in most of the regions. Similarly, low voter turnout can mean that the vote is not necessarily representative of what everyone thinks, and with some voters having to stand in line for hours in certain places, one must wonder how many people don't bother to vote just because it's a pain in the ass.

But you can't get too hung up on the question of how democratic something is. If a country is moving toward greater human rights, less violence, and a more prosperous economy, it's moving in the right direction.
I think that hits the nail right on the head.
User avatar
Chmee
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4449
Joined: 2004-12-23 03:29pm
Location: Seattle - we already buried Hendrix ... Kurt who?

Post by Chmee »

Admiral_K wrote:
Chmee wrote:The Palestinian election was probably fairer and more peaceful than anyone could reasonably have hoped for in the circumstances ... Barghouti got almost 20% of the vote.

Iraq's a different matter ... if the Sunnis stick to their boycott, the results will be so unrepresentative of the country's demographics that I can't see the election doing much to stabilize the country. The fact that an ex-pat dealer like Alawi is 'our guy' is discouraging to say the least.
Obviously this isn't going to be ideal. However, those that don't vote in the election are essentially stating that they prefer a dictatorship, which for all intents and purposes is what they will get when the rest of the country chooses a leader. After all, was Saddam's rule "representative of the country's demographic"?
That's a *very* subjective label to apply to a boycott. People will boycott for many reasons. Because they just don't think it's safe to vote where they live. Because they think the elections are an endorsement of the American occupation. Because they want the first parliamentary elections to actually represent the entire country, not just the Shiite provinces where it's relatively safe to vote. The major Sunni religious parties calling for a boycott don't say they want no elections, they say they don't want the election until the whole country can safely vote. And yeah, some people just don't want any election, they want a return to strongman rule.

If you get an election that 40% of the country sees as invalid, you're not going to do anything to reduce the level of insurgency violence, you're just creating a weak government that ultimately can only stay in power through force ... which will only undermine its democratic credentials further.
[img=right]http://www.tallguyz.com/imagelib/chmeesig.jpg[/img]My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but
Mrs. Spade didn't raise any children dippy enough to
make guesses in front of a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, and a stenographer
.

Sam Spade, "The Maltese Falcon"

Operation Freedom Fry
User avatar
Stravo
Official SD.Net Teller of Tales
Posts: 12806
Joined: 2002-07-08 12:06pm
Location: NYC

Post by Stravo »

While I agree that any measure of freedom and democracy is a good thing I have my issues with a US sponsored pupper getting the leg up in the election. I mean Karzi was almost annointed before the election by the Administration and Allawi is well on his way to the same status. What can an opponent say or do when you have the other guy sitting down having lunch with the POTUS, appearing before Congress and being name dropped every day?
Wherever you go, there you are.

Ripped Shirt Monkey - BOTMWriter's Guild Cybertron's Finest Justice League
This updated sig brought to you by JME2
Image
Admiral_K
Worthless Trolling Palm-Fucker
Posts: 560
Joined: 2002-08-09 01:51pm

Post by Admiral_K »

Chmee wrote:
Admiral_K wrote:
Chmee wrote:The Palestinian election was probably fairer and more peaceful than anyone could reasonably have hoped for in the circumstances ... Barghouti got almost 20% of the vote.

Iraq's a different matter ... if the Sunnis stick to their boycott, the results will be so unrepresentative of the country's demographics that I can't see the election doing much to stabilize the country. The fact that an ex-pat dealer like Alawi is 'our guy' is discouraging to say the least.
Obviously this isn't going to be ideal. However, those that don't vote in the election are essentially stating that they prefer a dictatorship, which for all intents and purposes is what they will get when the rest of the country chooses a leader. After all, was Saddam's rule "representative of the country's demographic"?
That's a *very* subjective label to apply to a boycott. People will boycott for many reasons. Because they just don't think it's safe to vote where they live. Because they think the elections are an endorsement of the American occupation. Because they want the first parliamentary elections to actually represent the entire country, not just the Shiite provinces where it's relatively safe to vote. The major Sunni religious parties calling for a boycott don't say they want no elections, they say they don't want the election until the whole country can safely vote. And yeah, some people just don't want any election, they want a return to strongman rule.
If they live in fear that they may be attacked by insurgents, then they are content to be ruled by those insurgents. If they want a more representative government, then they should go out and vote for those that would represent them. If they choose to listen to religous leaders calling for a boycott, they are essentially following yet another dictatorship.

The bottomline is this: If they want to have a voice in their government, they would vote. If they are content to sit back and allow others to make the decision they wont.
If you get an election that 40% of the country sees as invalid, you're not going to do anything to reduce the level of insurgency violence, you're just creating a weak government that ultimately can only stay in power through force ... which will only undermine its democratic credentials further.
WE'll just have to wait and see I guess.
User avatar
Chmee
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4449
Joined: 2004-12-23 03:29pm
Location: Seattle - we already buried Hendrix ... Kurt who?

Post by Chmee »

If they choose to listen to religous leaders calling for a boycott, they are essentially following yet another dictatorship.
Who do you think has credibility in the street? Religious leaders who have been living in Iraq, frequently imprisoned by Saddam (the ones who weren't executed), or a guy like Alawi who's been sipping Cristal in London waiting for the Americans to roll in and make it safe for him?

Like it or not, the mullahs are a significant political force, people are going to listen to them.
[img=right]http://www.tallguyz.com/imagelib/chmeesig.jpg[/img]My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but
Mrs. Spade didn't raise any children dippy enough to
make guesses in front of a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, and a stenographer
.

Sam Spade, "The Maltese Falcon"

Operation Freedom Fry
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Post by weemadando »

What worries me is that they say:

Some area's won't be secure enough for them to take part in the elections, but we feel that it won't make a difference to the outcome or the democratic process.

Strangely enough it will likely be the "anti-occupation" strongholds that won't be allowed to vote.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Let's face it; the fairness of the upcoming elections is probably the least of Iraq's problems right now.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Darth Wong wrote:Let's face it; the fairness of the upcoming elections is probably the least of Iraq's problems right now.
I'm not sure. Given the state of the country, the wrong person(And there's alot of 'wrong people', I'm sure, with over a hundred political parties) in power could lead quickly to civil war. This would be like the current situation, only with more people fighting each other, as well as the US.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Post by Lord Zentei »

SirNitram wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Let's face it; the fairness of the upcoming elections is probably the least of Iraq's problems right now.
I'm not sure. Given the state of the country, the wrong person(And there's alot of 'wrong people', I'm sure, with over a hundred political parties) in power could lead quickly to civil war. This would be like the current situation, only with more people fighting each other, as well as the US.
Not to mention that if the newly elected government is seen by the general population as posessing a mandate it will be that much harder for the insurgents to recruit.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
User avatar
CJvR
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2926
Joined: 2002-07-11 06:36pm
Location: K.P.E.V. 1

Post by CJvR »

Lord Zentei wrote:Not to mention that if the newly elected government is seen by the general population as posessing a mandate it will be that much harder for the insurgents to recruit.
Not really, the main resistance efforts is Sunni based and an election resulting in a Shia victory will not change much for them. The terrorist campaign is targeting Shia & Kurds with the same enthusiams as it targets foreigners. Shia militants not kept on a tight leach by Iran are more likely to fight their Sunni counterparts than the US army.

Not holding an election until the entire country is secure is basicaly the same thing as giving every nut with a gun a veto on the political process, like the Israelis did with such success a few years back.
I thought Roman candles meant they were imported. - Kelly Bundy
12 yards long, two lanes wide it's 65 tons of American pride, Canyonero! - Simpsons
Support the KKK environmental program - keep the Arctic white!
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Post by Lord Zentei »

CJvR wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:Not to mention that if the newly elected government is seen by the general population as posessing a mandate it will be that much harder for the insurgents to recruit.
Not really, the main resistance efforts is Sunni based and an election resulting in a Shia victory will not change much for them. The terrorist campaign is targeting Shia & Kurds with the same enthusiams as it targets foreigners. Shia militants not kept on a tight leach by Iran are more likely to fight their Sunni counterparts than the US army.

Not holding an election until the entire country is secure is basicaly the same thing as giving every nut with a gun a veto on the political process, like the Israelis did with such success a few years back.
This is true, but isn't the violence being perpetrated by a small minority of extremists? I suspect the majority of the population wants a peaceful, democratic Iraq. A truly representative government with a mandate would convince them that the insurgency does not represent the way forwards. And I said it would be harder for the insurgents to recruit, not impossible.

But if you are right, does Iraq have any future at all as a united country? Wouldn't just about every Iraqi shudder at the prospect of a breakup? This fear may be what swings the major groups in favour of some form of compromise, if they are smart enough.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12267
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

...does Iraq have any future at all as a united country? Wouldn't just about every Iraqi shudder at the prospect of a breakup?
I don't know. I've thought of how much easier it would be if Iraq were split up into a Sunni nation, a Shia nation, and a Kurdistan, and had each one run its own government.

Of course, in the long term, that probably isn't a good solution at all: Turkish Kurds would start to agitate to join, the Sunni state would become another dictatorship/fundamentalist theocracy, and it would probably start to sponsor terrorism in the Shia state.

Man. The insurgents can't lose.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
CJvR
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2926
Joined: 2002-07-11 06:36pm
Location: K.P.E.V. 1

Post by CJvR »

Lord Zentei wrote:isn't the violence being perpetrated by a small minority of extremists? I suspect the majority of the population wants a peaceful, democratic Iraq.
No doubt they do but there are significant numbers who oppose it. The Baath party and the favored Sunni parts of the country are a big% of Iraq and they are the ones who had the oppertunity to stock up on money and weapons. Look at ETA, a clear majority of the Basqe hate them but they are still around surviving on criminal "taxation" and popularity of about 15% of the population.
Lord Zentei wrote:A truly representative government with a mandate would convince them that the insurgency does not represent the way forwards.
Yes obviously, but even a partial victory is preferable to holding out waiting for perfection. Shifting the war from fighting the US to fighting an Iraqi regime, by far the most democratic in the Arab world, should cool things down a bit. A big problem is the passivisation of the Saddam era, keep silent and stay out of trouble. This is sound advice for the individual but when an entire nation behaves that way it leaves the power wide open for extremists and maniacs to try and take what they would never be given.
Lord Zentei wrote:But if you are right, does Iraq have any future at all as a united country? Wouldn't just about every Iraqi shudder at the prospect of a breakup? This fear may be what swings the major groups in favour of some form of compromise, if they are smart enough.
I suspect it will depend on the Sunni, if they are able to live as equals with the rest of Iraq then perhaps. If they continue to cling to Saddam nostalgia and AQ insanity things will look dark for neither the Shia or the Kurds will ever accept another Sunni tyrant.
I thought Roman candles meant they were imported. - Kelly Bundy
12 yards long, two lanes wide it's 65 tons of American pride, Canyonero! - Simpsons
Support the KKK environmental program - keep the Arctic white!
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Post by Lord Zentei »

CJvR wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:isn't the violence being perpetrated by a small minority of extremists? I suspect the majority of the population wants a peaceful, democratic Iraq.
No doubt they do but there are significant numbers who oppose it. The Baath party and the favored Sunni parts of the country are a big% of Iraq and they are the ones who had the oppertunity to stock up on money and weapons. Look at ETA, a clear majority of the Basqe hate them but they are still around surviving on criminal "taxation" and popularity of about 15% of the population.
About 25% of Iraq are Sunni arab. The Basque provinces are democratic despite ETA's continuing idiocy.
CJvR wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:A truly representative government with a mandate would convince them that the insurgency does not represent the way forwards.
Yes obviously, but even a partial victory is preferable to holding out waiting for perfection. Shifting the war from fighting the US to fighting an Iraqi regime, by far the most democratic in the Arab world, should cool things down a bit.


That was kind of my point. I did not advocate waiting for perfection.
CJvR wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:But if you are right, does Iraq have any future at all as a united country? Wouldn't just about every Iraqi shudder at the prospect of a breakup? This fear may be what swings the major groups in favour of some form of compromise, if they are smart enough.
I suspect it will depend on the Sunni, if they are able to live as equals with the rest of Iraq then perhaps. If they continue to cling to Saddam nostalgia and AQ insanity things will look dark for neither the Shia or the Kurds will ever accept another Sunni tyrant.
Agreed, but there is also the Sunni's fear of the prospect of living in a Shiia dominated country, and the need for the Shiia to allay such fears. If the Shiia can reach out to the Sunni, there may be a chance. If they start ignoring the Sunni (or - heaven forbid - giving as good as they got) there will be continuing trouble.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

I think the Palestinian elections were fair... Abu Mazen got, what, 66% of the vote? That seems fair, all things considered-- it's the ones where the guy gets "99.5%" of the vote that are obviously bullshit.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Eh, it's completely irrelevant whether or not the elections were fair. What's more important is if the guy who gets elected is willing to let the process continue unhindered--IE, that he doesn't resort to illegal tactics, is willing to step down if outvoted in upcoming elections, and relies purely on his media advantage to remain in power. That needs to be combined, however, with a public perception that the election was fair. In combination that's all you really need. There are numerous countries which have had long periods as effective one-party states, including the United States itself. The important thing is that as long as nobody breaks the rules and the public perceives the elections as fair, you're creating a climate where someone can, in the future, beat out the current ruling party and assume office without violence. I would not be surprised if Allawi's party runs Iraq for the next twenty years, but that shouldn't be of a concern to anyone as long as there is a peaceful transition when their tenure running the country ends.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
tharkûn
Tireless defender of wealthy businessmen
Posts: 2806
Joined: 2002-07-08 10:03pm

Post by tharkûn »

The Palestinian, Afghanistani, and most likely the Iraqi elections will never enter history books as examples of fair elections. So what? US elections from the civil war up the 1960's were bloody unfair and British elections prior to Disraeli's enfranchisement would be considered a joke today. The goal is not to have perfect elections, just better elections.
I mean Karzi was almost annointed before the election by the Administration and Allawi is well on his way to the same status. What can an opponent say or do when you have the other guy sitting down having lunch with the POTUS, appearing before Congress and being name dropped every day?
That would be because two days prior to 9/11 the Taliban assassinated Massoud.

Part of the problem is the whitehouse only backs strong candidates. Another part of the problem is that somebody has killed off or intimidated many of the potential opposition leaders: Israel killed many Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad leaders prior to the Palestinian elections. Saddam liquidated large blocs within the Iraqi Shia population, and the Taliban killed off the most central opposition leader. In Iraq and Afghanistan you also have the problem that you must avoid the stench of the old regime.

Between the winnowing processes realistic contenders are few and far between.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.
Post Reply