The Election in Iraq (Edward S. Herman article -- must read!)

[durutti]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7240

In our 1984 book Demonstration Elections: U.S.-Staged Elections In The Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador, Frank Brodhead and I stressed that such elections were mainly designed to placate (and mislead) the home population of the United States rather than to decide anything important in the countries in which the election was held. In each of the earlier cases the election did help consolidate the power of the U.S.-chosen leaders, but its most important function was to demonstrate to the U.S. public that we were on the right track in the occupied countries, helping them on the road to democracy. The fact that the peoples there came out and voted was interpreted as proof that they approved our occupation and wanted us to stay and finish the job. And in Vietnam and El Salvador the United States stayed on and managed a great deal more destruction and killings.

We also called attention to the fact that there was a sharp difference between what the voters allegedly wanted out of the election and what they got. In both Vietnam and El Salvador the public was reportedly eager for peace, according to U.S. news reports. However, the point of those elections was to strengthen the authority of political elements that were completely geared to further war, in accord with U.S. official demands, and further war is what ensued. Thus the elections yielded a result in contradiction to the apparent goals of the voters.

Another theme of the book was the failure of those demonstration elections to meet accepted standards that make elections truly free, including: freedom of assembly, speech, and press; the right to organize intermediate bodies like unions and political associations; the ability of candidates of all political complexion to enter their slates and compete; and the absence of state terror that might coerce voters into voting or voting for particular candidates. None of these conditions were met in the earlier demonstration elections.

A further theme was the calculated use of voter turnout as a measure of approval of the election and occupation itself, with the opposition of rebels serving as the dramatic counterpart of the contest. If people voted despite that rebel opposition it supposedly demonstrated the populace’s support of the official candidates--and of the occupation--and rejection of any opposition. We noted that this formula was not used in the case of the Polish election of 1947 sponsored by the Soviet Union; there the high turnout was cited as proof of coercion. There, the 170,000 Soviet-trained security police on hand was in itself considered to rule out the possibility of a free election. The Nicaraguan election of 1984 yielded a fine turnout for the Sandinistas, but here too, despite the contra opposition to the election, the turnout was not interpreted as demonstrating popular support of the Sandinista government, which was undergoing attack and destabilization by the Reagan administration.

More...

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Excellent article. Thanks for posting.

[Skinner]

2. This looks like a good read.

Thanks for posting.

Apparently, the Iraq election follows the same pattern...

The similarities of the media treatment of those earlier demonstration election to their performance on the January 30, 2005 Iraq election have been close, with only minor differences reflecting altered circumstances. Once again the media have played the turnout card, in line with the official public relations agenda, with the Iraqi public defying the insurgents and the U.S. military playing a pro-democracy role in protecting the election, just as the Salvadoran army did in the Salvadoran elections of 1982 and 1984. This makes the election a success and a vindication of U.S. policy, as the election was organized by the United States and opposed by the insurgents; and for the media elections are inherently good if carried out under proper auspices (that is, by the current Bush administration, or in El Salvador by the Reagan administration, or in Russia in 1996 when Boris Yeltsin was favored, by Yeltsin with the support of the Clinton administration--as opposed to the election under Sandinista auspices in Nicaragua in 1984).

[Soth]

3. Brilliant.

This is an excellent article. Thanks for finally giving us some rational perspective on the Iraq elections!

[UL_Approved]

4. We knew the election was a front for manipulation, but this explains it

It was obvious that the Iraqi "election" was going to be a front for putting more puppet government in place.

This explains all of the stuff that we needed to know, but may have not had access to.

Exporting Democracy™...

Its like a sales pitch, or a trade agreement. It just doesn't work. The contradiction is stupendous. "The Iraqi people will have democracy whether they like it or not". That alone is a total philosophical failure. Forcing democracy, dictating democracy: oxymoron.

[Maguzzi]

5. Gee I am shocked.

Those tupperware bins looked like a brilliant stopgap for fraud.
They are "transparent". How could they possibly get counted wrong, strewn across the desert sand waiting for pickup.

By the way, how much did each one of those bins cost us. They are at least $ 20.00 at Walmart. We probably paid 200.

[funnymanpants]

6. comparision not perfect

I like a lot of Herman's work, but I think he is guilty of drawing too much of a comparision between Central America in the 80's and Iraq right now. The elections in El Salvador were farcial, pure and simple, and the US participated in whole-scale slaughter to supress democracy in Nicaruagua, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

The picture is a bit different in Iraq. To be sure, the elections in Iraq were deeply flawed, with the Sunnis being kept out of the electoral process. Likewise, the article rightly points out that the US wanted a soft dictaorship in Iraq. However, the elections were much more democratic in Iraq than in El Salvador. For one thing, the citizens accurately reflected their will in electing the Shias to power. Unlike in El Salvador, the Iraqis voted against what the US wanted. To paraphrase Iraqi expert Juan Cole, the elections were deeply flawed--but they they did represent a positive step towards democracy. I don't think you could say the same thing about the elections in El Salvador.

I worry sometimes that people like Herman and Chomsky sometimes get bogged down in their own idealogy, and see the whole world through it.

[carnie_sf]

7. I love znet nt