Iraqis vote under the shadow of the gun
Andy Newman
As expected the Iraqi elections have
been compromised by poor security and lack of information for the voters about
the plethora of parties they could choose between. Nevertheless the reported
turnout of 8 million is higher than many were expecting, more than 60% of those
registered. There is no doubt that among many Iraqis there was real enthusiasm
of this election. Last week I was interviewed on the BBC radio alongside a local
Iraqi, Dr Yassin, who was delighted to be voting for the first time. His family
in Iraq live in Najaf and were intending to go to the polls individually so if
there was an attack on the polling station they would not all be killed
together.
It is
sometimes overlooked that the Americans themselves did not originally want
elections, and were pressurized into them by mass demonstrations initiated by
Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the leading Shia cleric in Iraq. What is more, many
Iraqis regard the elections as a transitional step towards ending the
occupation. Both the United Iraqi Alliance list (also known as the Shia list)
and the Peoples' Unity list (led by the Iraqi Communist Party- ICP) want to see
American withdrawal, as do many other parties.
For
example, Abdullah Muhsin, international representative of the Iraqi Trade Union
Federation (IFTU) wrote recently in the
that participation in the constitutional process, "would lead to a general
election and certainly end the occupation, [we will] regain full sovereignty and
take Iraq on the road to a representative parliamentary democracy that will,
hopefully, bring stability, peace and prosperity. It will ensure a united and
federal Iraq, guarantee religious freedom, advance public service and cement the
virtues of citizenship based on respect for the human rights of Iraq's different
nationalities and religions."
The
large votes in the election for parties who want to see US withdrawal prove that
Iraqis participating in the elections are not endorsing the occupation, and are
certainly not endorsing the invasion of their country by the imperialists, and
the plunder of their nation's resources by US multinationals. As Alex Callinicos
of the SWP writes: "We
have simply to accept that the Iraqi resistance remains divided over whether or
not to participate in the elections"
There
is indeed a widespread boycott endorsed mainly by Sunni religious authorities;
but also it seems reflecting a genuine popular distrust that any good outcome
can be achieved by the elections held under the shadow of Bradley armoured
vehicles and Apache helicopters. Harith Al-Dhari, head of the Muslim Scholars
Association in Baghdad explains why they are calling for a boycott: "We
explained that the US forces' violence and tyranny against the Iraqi people and
their destruction of our cities from Najaf to Falluja, were responsible for this
dire situation. In addition, the Iraqis do not feel that these elections will
lead to the fulfilment of their main demand, which is the end of the US
occupation. They simply do not see a light at the end of the dark tunnel. ...
Many share our conviction in the need to boycott the elections. However, if the
US declared its commitment to a timeframe for leaving Iraq we could appeal to
those people to take part in the elections."
Egyptian paper
Al Ahram
quotes Salwa Azzab, forced out of her hometown of Dorra near Baghdad after her
house was destroyed by American forces eight months ago: "I
will never go to polls as long as I don't even know the names of the candidates,
let alone their platforms, and as long as my country is still occupied by
foreign forces.
How can I choose my favourite
candidates even in a symbolic election? I do not trust the polls; as Iraq is
still under occupation and my family members are killed every day by the
occupiers."
In fact
it is not entirely accurate to describe the boycott as mainly a Sunni Moslem
tactic. A boycott is also being urged by populist Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr,
and 55 of the 111 electoral lists participating in the election are considered
Sunni. It is more pertinent that it is the Sunni areas of Iraq that are
embroiled in active insurgency, and where it is simply not safe to conduct an
election. Most controversially some elements of the armed insurgency have
targeted election workers and threatened to kill voters in an attempt to enforce
the boycott. On the eve of poll more than a dozen polling stations were bombed
and at least 17 people killed. Attacks on election day killed at least 36
according to the BBC. There can be no justification for this. Similarly the
armed attacks on trade union officials, such as the recent murder of IFTU
official Hadi Salih and the kidnapping of Talib Khadim Al Tayee, President of
the Iraqi Mechanics, Metalworkers & Print workers Union (IMM&PU) must be
condemned.
For
those who see participation in the constitutional process as a step towards US
withdrawal there may be a trap waiting in the detail of the process itself. To
complete the constitutional process requires security to be restored, but the
only force in Iraq that the new government can turn to is the 150,000 troops of
the US led occupation.
It is
necessary to understand the process. These national assembly elections are the
just one step towards constitutional government according to roadmap laid down
by the Interim State Administration Law (IAL). They elect a national assembly
which will then appoint a government, president and prime minister. One of the
main tasks facing the assembly will be to write a permanent constitution by the
15 August. A referendum is scheduled for two months after that and assuming a
yes vote this will be followed by elections to elect a fully constitutional
government by 30 December.
The IAL
stipulates that should the constitution be rejected by three or more of Iraq's
18 provinces it will be blocked. So the provinces have a significance enshrined
in the IAL. Few commentators have remarked that alongside the National Assembly
election there is a simultaneous election for the regional councils of the 18
provinces. Apparently in three provinces, Salah Eddin, Mosul and Al-Anbar, and
in large parts of Baghdad the election is simply not happening because the level
of insurgency is too great.
Al Ahram
reported Iyad Al-Samara'i, of the Islamic Iraqi Party saying: "There
is not a single balloting station in any of these provinces yet they are home to
40 per cent of the Iraqi population,"
To
overcome the fact that the election is not truly happening in all of Iraq the
whole country has been made a single nationwide constituency. But the referendum
to ratify any constitution is required by the IAL to be conduced province by
province, which in turns requires that the new government recovers sufficient
control of the insurgent provinces to hold the referendum by the middle of
October. No easy task.
The
trap for the Iraqi Communist Party in particular is being sucked into the
position of supporting the occupation forces restoring order as a precondition
for their own withdrawal. Worryingly ICP member Abdullah Muhsin does seem to
argue a rather uncomplicated view that the armed insurgency has no progressive
component. As he wrote in the
Morning Star:
"The forces pushing
for violent engagement [with the Americans] are composed of extreme reactionary
fanatics. They are mainly ultra-fundamentalist in nature, such as al-Zarqawi,
who makes no distinction between innocent civilians, both Iraqis and foreign
workers, and foreign armies. Such fundamentalist groups seek to establish a
Taliban-style regime. Other groups are composed of Saddam loyalists. These
represent an extreme form of nationalism with a dark and violent history
drenched in the blood of thousands of Iraqi democrats - communists, trade
unionists, progressives and women activists. Saddam loyalists now pretend to be
some sort of national liberation movement."
A much
more nuanced appraisal is given by Gilbert Achcar, of the French LCR who
recently wrote: "The
so-called Iraqi resistance is a heterogeneous conglomerate of forces, many of
them purely local. For a major part, these are people revolted by the
heavy-handed occupation of their country, fighting against the occupiers and
their armed Iraqi auxiliaries. But another segment of the forces engaged
in violent actions in Iraq is composed of utterly reactionary fanatics, mainly
of the Islamic Fundamentalist kind, who make no distinction between civilians,
Iraqis included, and armed personnel, and resort to horrible acts, like the
decapitation of Asian migrant workers and the kidnapping and/or assassination of
all kinds of persons who are in no way hostile or harmful to the Iraqi national
cause. These acts are being used in Washington to counterbalance the effect of
the legitimate attacks against the US troops: the task of presenting the "enemy"
as evil is thus made very easy."
Commentators on the ground in Iraq, for
example Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn of the
Independent
certainly give credence to this view that the majority of the insurgency is
relatively uncoordinated, localist and popular. The 1600 dead American and other
foreign soldiers, and over 10000 wounded stand witness that the occupation
forces and their hapless allies in the Iraqi army and police bear the brunt of
this.
The
fact of a mass popular insurgency cannot be doubted, and CIA estimates put this
at 200,000 combatants. This is the context within which Iraqi civil institutions
- including trade unions and workers' parties - have to operate. Too close an
association with the US occupation is likely to expose workers' organisations to
risk of attack by the reactionary component of the insurgency. The ICP
participation in the Allawi government may well be the motivation for the murder
of Hadi Salih and the abduction of Al Tayee.
The Labour and anti-war
movements in Britain must also recognize that the situation in Iraq is resistant
to easy answers. Our movement rightly
embraces individuals and
organisations with a wide range of opinions. And we must accept that there will
different attitudes towards the insurgency in Iraq, and which civil institutions
in Iraq should be supported. The only hopeful outcome is for there to be a firm
commitment for the early withdrawal of the occupation forces. This is the goal
we must all unite around.
January 2005