Iraqi Sunni Clerics: "Election Lacked Legitimacy"

[welshTerrier2]

the only path to peace, and there are no guarantees, is a regionally negotiated solution under an internationally supported framework ... the U.S. cannot participate AT ALL and must begin to withdraw over the next 6 months ... the elections will make negotiations much more difficult, especially if there is an effort to recognize them as the basis for forming a "legitimate" government ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0202-02.htm

<skip>

"These elections lack legitimacy because a large segment of different sects, parties and currents ... boycotted," the Sunni religious group said in a statement as the vote count proceeded.

"This means the coming national assembly and government that will emerge will not possess the legitimacy to enable them to draft the constitution or sign security or economic agreements."

<skip>

Many Iraqis fear the election results, which are expected to be finalized early next week, could fuel the Sunni-led insurgency and foment sectarian strife. Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has vowed to pursue "holy war."

"We warn the United Nations and the international community of the danger of granting these elections legitimacy because this will open a door of evil," the clerics' group said.

<skip>

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Ooops! nt

[Avalux]

2. Civil War

you can bank on it. Let * bask in glory tonight; he'll regret it later.

[tinonedown]

3. Yes, the truth slowly seeps out

But don't expect the press here to cover any of it.

[NewJeffCT]

14. welcome to DU and you are correct

the mainstream media is too busy orgasming over the spectacular success of the elections to notice anything as inconvenient as civil war.

[gratuitous]

8. Sadly, no

Stupidhead only has one setting, and that's "bask in glory." Regrets are for other people who die, have loved ones who die, have fellow human beings die, or who aren't making a boatload of money by war profiteering.

No matter what ensues after today, from civil strife to a war of all against all or cannibalism or whatever, Stupidhead will take credit today for Sunday's events, and anything that happens after that isn't his concern.

And the media won't make it his concern. Nor will the Democrats in Congress.

[theboss]

4. Not unexpected

The next few months will decide if Iraq has a chance for stability or not. The election seemed to go off better than expected in terms of turnout and lack of violence. How the Sunnis now respond will really be the final arbiter, at least in the short term.

[BillZBubb]

15. Election went "better than expected"????

Better the who expected? The MSM and Bushco propaganda effort was geared up to prepare the sheeple for the worst. That way it was win-win for them no matter the outcome.

In fact people who know something about Iraq expected the elections to go off pretty much like they did. The Shiites would vote in high numbers. So would the Kurds. The Sunnis would participate weakly. There would be no more voilence than usual.

That's exactly what happened. The next few months will do nothing to determine Iraq's stability. That is again Bushco propaganda.

I find it hard to believe so many DUers fall for that crap over and over.

[theboss]

19. Better than I expected

I figured there would be massive violence; there wasn't. That's a good thing.

I still have a smidgeon of hope that this whole disaster will somehow work out in the end - that the three main ethnic groups in Iraq will somehow form a democratic country. This week kept that smidgeon of hope alive.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Avalux]

6. but of course

that explains it then. Did you say the same thing when so many of us were crying election fraud in November?

[Jo March]

7. Tell them to join the crowd

Ours lacked legitimacy as well. x(

[Itsthetruth]

9. Election Cartoons

[Jo March]

11. Lol, I love the first one

It's so true. The photographer should have a Fox News sticker on his shirt!

[lonestarnot]

13. Completion of 50,000 air bases throughout a turning point! n/t

[Carolab]

10. As Ramsey Clark said.

An occupying country can't stage a legitimate election for the country it invaded.

What a JOKE.

[Avalux]

12. It's in the Geneva Convention -

the election is not ligitimate. But then, when has Bushco ever honored the Geneva Convention?

[ArkDem]

17. lol

[slackmaster]

16. "...Sunni clerics... ...had urged an election boycott ..."

ROFLMAO!!!

I guess the people who followed the clerics' advice about boycotting the election have just learned their first hard lessons about democracy.

1. Don't listen to religious fanatics, and

2. If you don't vote, you have to accept the decisions made by others.

:dunce:

[welshTerrier2]

18. why are clerics "fanatics" ???

and your second point is also highly questionable ... what makes you think the Sunnis "have to accept the decisions made by others" ??

the whole point is that they are NOT going to accept the legitimacy of the government ... you think just because there was an election they are obligated to accept the results?

if the U.S. declared there would be an election to see who should rule Canada and the U.S., and a majority (because there are way more voters in the U.S.) voted that the U.S. should rule both countries, would you expect Canadians to just go along because the majority had spoken ??

absent a negotiating process, not a vote where one group could easily control the outcome, the minority Sunnis will not accept the new government ... and whether they had voted or not would not have changed the outcome ...

the goal is representation and self-determination ... the elections provided for neither ... the path to peace is through negotiation, not through voting ...

[slackmaster]

20. The election, legitimate or not, has happened

the goal is representation and self-determination ... the elections provided for neither ... the path to peace is through negotiation, not through voting ...

There is no conceivable scenario for implenting self-rule in Iraq that would satisfy all affected parties. The plan that is being executed now may not be the best that could have been, but it's in place and at this point it's better to carry a flawed plan to completion rather than doing nothing or trying to adopt a better plan. What happens next will be very interesting - That's where the negotiations will come into play. Before you negotate you have to decide who will be represented and how the negotiations will be conducted. That was the purpose of this election.

Those who chose not to participate in the election can bitch and moan all they want about the results, but at the end of the day they chose to let others decide what kind of interim government would be installed in their country. It seems terribly disingenuous for people who urged a group of citizens not to vote to now complain that those citizens' voices have not been heard. The bus has left, and they weren't on it. Boycotting an election is always a dumb thing to do even if the election doesn't meet your definition of "legitimate".

if the U.S. declared there would be an election to see who should rule Canada and the U.S., and a majority (because there are way more voters in the U.S.) voted that the U.S. should rule both countries, would you expect Canadians to just go along because the majority had spoken ??

That's a bizarre hypothetical situation you've dreamed up. Let us know when it happens and I'll give you my opinion then.

For the Iraqis who followed the idiotic suggestion to boycott the election, my late stepfather's favorite piece of advice fits well: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Avalux]

23. The election was a complete sham

Didn't matter if the Sunnis voted anyway. There will never be a truly independent representative government in Iraq that will protect the rights of the minorities. The Shiites will rule, the Sunnis will rebel, and the Kurds will fall away and form their own country after much bloodshed.
Anyone who believes there's a chance of peaceful equality is living in la-la land.

[slackmaster]

26. It's possible that there is no solution that will work

If that is the case, then the country never should have been created in the first place. It's doomed to fall apart no matter what the US or anyone else does now. If that's the way things are, the election and its legitimacy or lack thereof are completely irrelevant.

We'll have to wait and see how it all turns out. We can't un-do the election, we can't un-invade the country.

Anyone who believes there's a chance of peaceful equality is living in la-la land.

Then the bloodshed that the British started suppressing in 1918 should have been allowed to run its course back then, and now is inevitable.

Or not.

[theboss]

31. You are sadly probably right

But if that is the case, then we just need to adopt the three-state solution and get on with it.

The underlying problem with Iraq is that it's an artificial state. The Brits plopped a country onto three diverse groups and wished them good luck. The same thing essentially happend in Yugoslavia.

It may prove to be the case that it takes a Tito or a Hussein to keep these types of countries together. We'll see.

As I've said before, there are a million problems here, but I utterly refuse to align myself with minority clerics demanding that their views dominate a country.

[Mystified]

22. I believe the point the poster was making is...

I may be wrong, but I believe the poster was stating that if you decide to voluntarily stay home on election day you can't really complain when the person whom you wished to see win does not win. The Sunnis were encouraged by their clerics to boycott the election. Now that the Sunnis realize that the election results are being taken seriously by those who voted they are crying foul. It's like the old saying here in the U.S.: "If you don't vote, don't bitch".

Also, from what I understand, the election results call for a parliamentary style of government with proportional representation based on the percentage of votes received. While the Sunnis would certainly be in the minority due to their smaller numbers, they would not have gone completey unrepresented. Of course, they probably still won't go completely unrepresented because to do so would ensure an all out civil war.

[welshTerrier2]

24. "If you don't vote, don't bitch".

i don't think they plan to waste their time bitching ...

unless, of course, you consider "holy war" bitching ...

Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has vowed to pursue "holy war."

[slackmaster]

27. No, that's not what I meant to say at all

I'm saying that the people who followed calls to boycott the election made a mistake, and those who called for a boycott have no credibility when they complain that their peoples' views were not represented in the election.

[tralfaz]

21. I hate to say this

but, of course he won't agree with the election reuslts because the Sunni are no longer the minority that are running the country. Isn't it strange that it wasn't ok when the minority ran the government in South Africa but it is ok when the minority runs the government in Iraq? Let the majority try running the government in Iraq, it seemed to work in South Africa

[TexasSissy]

25. Their statement doesn't make sense. Irrational.

They choose to boycott election, so they claim that makes the election invalid? I don't think so. If they were prevented from voting, that would be the case. But this sounds like a last ditch effort to stop the election process, when they couldn't stop it beforehand.

The election results will be confirmed. And it looks like Civil War will ensue. Are we surprised?

[welshTerrier2]

28. confirmed by whom ??

the Sunnis never accepted the elections as a valid process ... they did not believe that elections would protect their minority interests ... while the wording of their objection could have been better, i think the point being made was that most Sunnis boycotted the election because they didn't see the process of elections as protecting their interests ...

when the U.S. was being formed, and i'm no history expert, two houses were formed in the legislature ... in Iraq it was a single house ... the difference is very important ... with proportional representation, as we have in the House of Representatives, larger states (in population) could have overwhelmed smaller states by outvoting them ... the Senate, which gives every state regardless of population, 2 votes, was an effort to address the problem of the "tyranny of the majority" ...

my understanding is that no such provision was made in Iraq ... perhaps, absent a U.S. military occupation and a real negotiating opportunity, such things could have been discussed prior to the elections ...

the bottom line, as you pointed out, is that calling these elections "legitimate" will only worsen the violence and lead to civil war ... whether Sunnis should have voted or not is not the point; the point is that they are not going to accept this outcome and there will be no stability until real negotiations take place ... that won't guarantee a peaceful solution but, unlike the elections, it will offer an opportunity for one ...

[TexasSissy]

29. It's a done deal. The world is validating the election.

The ones with the power and the money are confirming the election. Done deal. The Sunnis are just trying to lessen the effect of the election in a last ditch effort, since their efforts beforehand didn't work. It's a pathetic position for them to be in and to try. Their best path is to try to weasel themselves into the government in some way. But they won't do it the smart way. They will engage in a Civil War.

I am not on the side of the Sunnis...or the Shi'ites. I thought a tri-rule setup would be best (Kurd, Shi'ite, and Sunni), but they didn't do that. A pity. But Saddam's people, the Sunnis, are hardly credible and invoke sympathy from the world. They would have done better to vote and try to affect the outcome...but they were too busy bombing citizens.

[theboss]

30. The Sunnis don't want their minority position protected

They want to run the whole show.

There are a million things wrong in Iraq, but in this one area, I tend to agree with the Administration - the Sunnis don't get to run things anymore. That's the issue here.

Granted, this should have been considered prior to the fucking invasion but we live in the world we live in. The Sunnis aren't going to view any government not dominated by the Sunnis as legitimate. That needs to change.

[kwassa]

32. you put the cart before the horse: there is no constitution yet

The elections are legitimate, but the country has yet to create a constitution, so how power will be shared is not specified yet, though everyone seems to be talking about the need to include Sunnis, even if they didn't vote.

If the Sunnis don't vote, that is their own problem. They used to rule Iraq, even though they were only 20% of the population, so they have to lose, in one respect. As far as they are concerned, their interests are not protected unless they continue to rule Iraq. Ain't going to happen.

As to the structure of the government itself, the constitutionl referendum will be later this year, and this elected group now will help determine the nature of that referendum.