British Expatriate Network

Yesterday's elections in Iraq took place while its cities have and are being bombed and were thousands of civilians have been killed. Those Iraqis who voted, in my opinion committed an act of treason yesterday because their participation has only served to help legitimize their own occupation and subjugation. The choice of various candidates was laughable and the only ones on the ballot were those that the Americans would allow and who would accept the occupation.

The major Sunni party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, thankfully didn't compete, mainly as a protest at the continuing violence of the occupation. The American solution is that they will appoint some Sunni representatives, very democratic. roll The very idea that a country can hold free and fair elections when cities are being bombed, citizens arbitrarily arrested, and prisoners tortured is silly.

There is now a real danger of sectarian civil war in Iraq. The US, knows it has failed in Iraqi, and its only hope now is to use the elections to co-opt the Shiite majority population in support of the occupation. And, in the process, isolate the country's Sunni minority and with it the resistance. Yet, we now have to watch and listen to the American media distort and lie about the reality and be subjected of hours and hours of nauseating propaganda supporting the Bush regime. A great free press they have.

Moo, its worth remembering that most of the bombs going off in Iraq right now are being planted by those who oppose the elections. thus stopping the elections would just hand them a victory. Of course, what those elections are worth is something else entirely.

Personally I'm reserving judgment on the elections. I think that some of what is coming out of Iraq today is somewhat premature - the results will not be known for another week or so and although the Iraqi government are claiming a turnout of 60% - this is really an 'estimate' - no one really knows.

Also the footage we have been shown of people going to vote is inevitably from the 'safe' areas - safe for western media that is. We have only a sketchy idea of what happened elsewhere, although the UN has said that turnout in the Sunni Triangle was higher than expected (given that expectations were around nil, that may not have been difficult to achieve).

Given that most of the Sunnis have either boycotted the election or have been intimidated, I'm not surprised that there are plans to 'appoint' Sunnis. Without this they will have no say at all and whilst appointed 'quislings' are far from ideal, they might be better than nothing. Alternatively they might just be fig leaves, used to legitize a process that is barely legitimate.

I'm not sure that participation was was treasonous or that it did anything to legitimize the occupation. I think many Shities see it as the quickest way of getting rid of the occupations. It must also be remembered that the major Sunni paties chose to boycott the elections. If the Tories boycott the next British election does that make it any less legitimate? If we are not careful we play into the hands of those who don't want the process to work. The major Sunni parties chose not to participate because they knew that they were a minority and thus would poll poorly. By boycotting the process they hope to persuade the world that it is illigitimate. We should be cautious of playing their game.

The real interesting part is just begining - the constitutional convention. Will the Shiites really choose democracy over theocracy? will Iran let them? Will the Kurds really agree to a federal Iraq, will they be allowed, will Turkey keep out? Who gets Kirkuk will the Sunnis roll over or will the insurgency grow?

Whatever happens, the some things I'll guarantee the US media will contiue to misreport, Bush will continue to call whatever happens a success and the majority of Americans will continue to not give a damn.

It turns my stomach knowing how Bush and his cronies will try to use the great turnout at yesterdays election to illustrate how right they were to invade Iraq.

However, I have nothing but the greatest admiration for everyone that voted in the election/poll. Despite the very real threat to their lives and despite having to walk often quite long distances to the voting stations, a huge number of people turned out and voted (puts those who didn't vote in the US election to shame).

At the same time I completely respect those in Iraq who didn't vote, either because of the danger or because they saw the election as some how being a vote in support of Bush. I can understand that.

I have found myself at times torn between wanting no-one to vote so as to really "stick it" to Bush and yet wanting so much for Iraq and its people to move forward despite Bush & Co's inept (sp) handling of this invasion and its aftermath.

We can't undo the events that have already taken place, but I hope so much that the people of Iraq will be able to build the country they want out of the aftermath of the invasion. If they do the credit will be theirs not Bush's.

Not sure that I'm explaining myself well, I was completely against Bush invading in the manner that he did and I think the lack of planning for what would come after the invasion in inexcusable (is that a word) but what is done is done.

My desire for the people of Iraq to be able to rebuild their lives and country is greater than my dislike of Bush and desire for him to have egg on his face over the mess in Iraq. If that means I have to put up with him saying "I told you so" (even though he is utterly wrong) well so be it.

p.s
Who knows what will happen now the high security and curfew of yesterday is lifted. I don't think even the most optimistic amoungst think that everything is now fine and dandy.

In response to these points, you cannot have a "legitimate" election when you are occupied by a foreign force. The situation is perverted and for Americans this shame of an election absolutely legitimizes its invasion occupation.

An act of abstention is a political choice, the appointment of delegates perverts that choice.

Any participation/collaboration in the occupation of your country is treasonous.

Sorry Moo, whilst I sympathize with your general point - it is perfectly possible to have legitimate democratic elections under an occupation - they did it in West Germany for 40 years. Whats more, in that case the allies pretty much wrote the constitution and, yes, decided who couldn't run (nazis). The same applied in Japan.

I disagree, I think it only legitmizes the invasion in the minds of those who belived it was legitimate in the first place.

Sometimes you just have to use the mechanisims available to you to get you to where you ultimately want to be.

Voting yesterday didn't mean you agreed with the occupation, but not participating in the beginnings of change sure as hell isn't going to get rid of your occupiers. I would imagine that the average Iraqi doesn't especially want their occupiers to bugger off without at least cleaning up some of the mess they have created first.

Yesterday was a success in terms of the American security of the elections. I'm usually one of the first to criticise but they did a top job of keeping the lid on things and it was a job well done.

However, they can't spread themselves like that every day - cars must be able to park, drivers must be able to drive etc. and once the results are in, the insurgents will have many, lightly or totally unguarded "winners" to make up their hit-lists for the next few months.

funny isn't it.........

plenty of polling stations in Downtown Baghdad, yet not one to be found in the arse end of Cleveland 2 months ago.

Yep, they've got a thing or two to teach us about democracy. Maybe one day they'll export it here -?

Yeah, but lets face it, if it brings down the price of oil :D

Apparently the turnout was 60% of registered electors, that pretty good. Voting under the chance of being bombed when Americans won't in case they miss an episode of Young and Restless...or a meal