How turnout shows the Iraq civil war to come, not democracy

[Inland]

Looking behind the total number--whether the 70% that has been pulled out the air or something realistic--you see bad days ahead.

The VARIANCE in turnout is what counts.

Huge in Shiite areas where clerics have encourage turnout, none in Sunni where the defacto powers have threatened those who turn out.

The hope of the Shiites, as encouraged by clerics, was to gain power. They have, in a huge way.

The government will not be representative if the Sunni minorities are not represented in accord with their true numbers.

Remember, this government is to write the constitution. Therefore this unrepresentative government is not something that can just be cured in the next election, assuming there is one. This government can legally, with American blessing, write a constitution with a winner take all, strong executive--essentially an elected dictator--and plan on Shiite majorities to run roughshod over minorities, including, but not limited to, rule by imams.

Of course, the first job of the strong Shiite executive will be to bring rebellious factions under his control by declaring the sunni areas under martial law and if voting is depressed in those areas in the next election......

Winner take all and damn the minorities is, by the way Bush runs his own shop, an acceptable result and democracy. Bush is on record as declaring that these elections are marvelous, super, democratic before they took place. The future "elections" are sure to pass his muster.

But the Sunnis and other minorities aren't going to accept the results. They don't think that becoming permanent second class citizens is a democratic result, and they are right. It isn't democracy but a complicated form of dictatorship.

The essence of democracy is not merely rule by the majority. It is acceptance by the minority as well. Frankly, having the same majority that rules accepting majority rule is not hard. It is having the minority accept, peacefully, the result of majority rule through a guarantee of liberties and ability to affect outcomes. That's not on the Bush radar. Bush himself is more of an elected dictator than a democratic figure.

Civil war to come.

[Spazito]

1. Don't forget the Kurds as well,,,

they intend to carve out their own country and the Turks aren't going to go with that. bush's puppets will clamp down on the Kurds and the Sunnis and the deaths will go on while US corporations continue to rob the Iraqis of their resources and the bush cabal establishes permanent bases by which to 'transform' the middle east.

[eallen]

2. I think things are more hopeful than that.

I'm hearing that turnout in Sunni areas might be as high as 40%. That represents a significant rejection of the "don't vote" message.

Perhaps more importantly, some of the major Shi'ite parties are making some reasonable promises with regard to the constitution. Keep in mind that the purpose of this election is not to create a permanent government, as much as it is to convene a constitutional convention. That constitution can be vetoed by any three of the eighteen provinces. The Kurds are insisting that the constitution is secular and federal. They, also, don't want to live in a Shi'ite state. Because of the three of eighteen rule, the Shi'ites cannot force a constitution that neither the Kurds nor Sunnis want. If the Shi'ites are willing to compromise on the nature of the constitution, as many are now saying they are, things might work out reasonably well.

None of this excuses Bush's lies. But we don't have to wish ill on the future of Iraq in order to oppose Bush.

[Inland]

3. You are wrong about the three of eighteen rule

Here's art 61 of the Iraqi interim constitution:
"(C) The general referendum will be successful and the draft constitution ratified if a majority of the voters in Iraq approve and if *two-thirds of the voters* in three or more governorates do not reject it."

The need for two thirds of the voters to vote no in a 'governorate" may make it impossible for any minority to veto the consitution. There would have to be three districts drawn to have supermajority sunnis. Combined with the ratification by a mere majority of voters, the minorities will be left to try to kill the new constitution or nothing.

One could hope that the Shiites are willing to compromise on the nature of the constitution, but by waiting until AFTER the election for national assembly is held--and declared an amazing victory for democracy by Bush--the incentives for Shiites to compromise is drastically lowered. Bush never bothered to instill the idea of the rights of the minority, there is no Federalist No. 10, there is no checks and balances being preached to them. In fact, Bush has been consistently dumbing down what a democracy is. A democracy is not a vote alone. But you would never know it coming from Bush, because he is so eager to announce that Iraq is well on its way to democracy he accepts a vote where most of the people are too frightened to vote, many candidates too frigtened to announce, no policies are debated, no platforms are presented, as democracy in action.

It could work out. But that's a hope, not a plan.