 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|||
  |
Ayatollah Sistani's call for popular elections in Iraq triggered a great deal of comments as to whether Iraq is ready for such feat. The opposing U.S. and the Governing Council state that security at the polls cannot be guaranteed, rights of 4 million Iraqi exiles would be ignored. The Sunni and Kurdish populations worry about their diminishing roles.
I think Mr. Sistani's call was clever and timely. It can achieve three objectives. A direct election is more acceptable to the people than the two-step electoral-college system, agreed on by Iraq's Viceroy Mr. Bremer and the governing Council on November 15. A 15-member transitional governing committee will run the country until the general in 2005. According to this plan, a 15-member transitional national assembly will run the country until the general elections in 2005. Five members will be selected by the Governing Council and 10 elected by an electoral college, which itself will be elected through local and provincial elections. The UN is been given no role. Mr. Sistani says the assembly be elected by direct vote to give it more legitimacy. People may not accept a partly selected by government, and serious problems and even violence may ensue.
Secondly, Ayatollah Sistani threw the ball in the UN court by allowing it to make the final decision on whether the plan is workable on security considerations. By this, he's going over the Americans' head and is dragging the UN into the Iraqi politics, diluting American influence. This is what the Iraqis, EU and the UN always wanted anyway. So he is killing two birds with one stone.
Poll security, which some Governing Council members and the Americans are arguing, can't be less important. How can they secure the polls in the electoral-college elections, but not in popular election? The Shiite areas covering 60% of population will be safe. In Kurdish north, too, the security can be achieved. So, the only area for the GC to worry about is the Sunni triangle, as against the entire nation for the electoral elections.
The interesting thing is that back in May, US Marine and civil affairs units stationed in Najaf, arranged for polling stations and voter registration in the city for local elections, and the candidates campaigned for votes. Things were progressing without problem when Mr. Bremer cancelled it in the last minute due Coalition Provisional Authority's policy of banning elections. This election could've been an excellent test case.
Thirdly, the future constitution and the future of that constitution is at stake. The assembly will be writing a constitution and arrange for general elections in 2005. This constitution will determine the degree of stability and national unity Iraq will experience in the years to come. A constitution written by a popularly elected assembly will have more chance of approval, if a referendum is held for its ratification. Such constitution must insure one-man one-vote and a balanced representation of population.
I think the call for popular elections, even if it had not been proposed by the most popular religious leader in Iraq, should not go unheeded. Shiite majority, who's always been repressed by minority groups, represent the same force that kicked the British out of Iraq in 1920, and nearly took Baghdad and overthrew Saddam Hussein in 1991, before Americans betrayed them in favor of Saddam, thus the ensuing mass slaughters.
Finally, it's time for the Iraqis to start thinking less along the religious and ethnic lines and more as a unified nation. The process, which this election will be the start of, will be difficult, painful and time-healing. It may even bring instability and violence for the decade to come, but it is inevitable if Iraq is to transform into a nation rather than a forced gathering of independent ethnicities. Remember Yugoslavia!
Iran Daily, issue 1912, page 2, Jan. 25, 2004
