As the US media likes to point out, the Bush legacy is intrinsically tied to Iraq. And evidently, they are banking on it’s ultimate failure.
So it comes as no surprise that it takes a UK (not a US) publication, The Guardian, to report on some very notable successes in the wake of the Iraq elections over the weekend.
As William Shawcross states in his headline today…
Democratic dawn in Iraq
Polling was peaceful, the results encouraging.
We could yet be looking at a model for Arab states
Despite a lower than expected turnout of 51%, there were no boycotts based on ethic or sectarian lines. In fact, the Sunni turnout in some areas was as high as 60%… a big difference from the 2005 elections. “It was also the first election to have international observers in all 712 constituencies.”
The peaceful polling was remarkable and so were the results. All the Islamic parties lost ground, especially that associated with the so-called “Shia firebrand”, Moqtada al-Sadr, whose share of the vote went down from 11% to 3%. The principal Sunni Islamic party, the Islamic Party of Iraq, was wiped out.
The only Islamic party to gain ground was the Dawa party of the Shia prime minister Nouri al-Maliki – and even that party dropped the word Islamic from its name. The power of Maliki, who has emerged a stronger leader than expected, is further enhanced by these elections. Now no Islamic parties will be able to control any provinces on their own. The election is thus a big defeat for Iran which had hoped that Shia religious parties would control the south and enable Iran to turn them into a mini Shia republic.
Instead, a new generation of Iraqi politicians is coming forward. Many of them are young and secular. They have lived always in Iraq, not in exile; they are Iraqis with local roots first and foremost – they are not pan-Arabs or pan-Islamists. Nor do they have connections to the US.
Contrast this with McClatchy’s Leila Fadel’s doom’n’gloom report.
Low turnout in Iraq’s election reflects a disillusioned nation BAGHDAD — Voter turnout in Iraq’s provincial elections Saturday was the lowest in the nation’s short history as a new democracy despite a relative calm across the nation. Only about 7.5 million of more than 14 million registered voters went to the polls.
Interviews suggest that the low voter turnout also is an indication of Iraqi disenchantment with a democracy that, so far, has brought them very little.
Since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and the fall of a brutal dictator, Iraqis witnessed unprecedented violence in their nation and what they believe is humiliation under a foreign occupation. Even on Saturday, U.S. tanks could be spotted across Baghdad on largely empty roads.
Are these two speaking of the same election?? But then, coming from McClatchy… who’s reporting must come into question the majority of the time… I can’t say as I’m surprised. But then, McClatchy’s is the publication likely to receive more attention from the US voter over The Guardian. They must be smug in their attempts to diss both the Iraqis and, by association, the former President.
Credit goes also to Aseel Kami and Missy Ryan of Reuters, reporting from Baghdad.
Iraq holds peaceful election, Obama, U.N. applaud Iraqis held their most peaceful election since the fall of Saddam Hussein on Saturday, voting for provincial councils without a single major attack in a poll that demonstrated the country’s dramatic security gains.
U.S. President Barack Obama hailed the poll as an important step toward Iraqis taking responsibility for their future. “I congratulate the people of Iraq on holding significant provincial elections today,” he said in a statement.
“The purple fingers have returned to build Iraq,” Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said after the polls closed, referring to the indelible ink stains on index fingers that show voters have cast their ballots.
There was something of a holiday atmosphere in many parts of the country. In normally traffic-choked Baghdad, children took advantage of a ban on cars to play soccer in the streets.
“How can we not vote? All of us here have always complained about being oppressed and not having a leader who represented us. Now is our chance,” said Basra voter Abdul Hussein Nuri.
Reuters article did devote the last (pg 2) of the article to the few glitches… none of which sound that dissimilar to our own US elections. Voters failing to find their names on the registration list, with some in the Diyala province taking to the streets in protest. Even that is a sign of progress… the ability to protest in Iraq without finding one’s self in Saddam’s gulag.
Reuters, however, took great pains *not* to mention George W. Bush or Tony Blair, instead giving prominent position to Obama’s reaction instead.
In the more geniune Guardian article, Shawcross was also wise to place cautious caveats on his glowing review. Certainly there is a fragility to this new Arab democracy. The nation is far from united…. but then, so is the US after centuries. Functioning while not in lockstep is, indeed, a hallmark of democracy.
They have their speedbumps ahead. As the US withdraws, security may be at risk if again the jihad movements and disgruntled Ba’athists and Saddam loyalists again try to seize control via a violent coup. The test will be if the Iraq forces can hold their own, without the aid of the US military who are under the control of a POTUS who may be inclined to dole out “tough love” as a result of peer pressure.
But Shawcross knows this momentous occasion in Iraq’s new history is due to a couple of much maligned and hated leaders… George W. Bush and Tony Blair.
There were lamentable failures in the subsequent US occupation, which allowed the rise of the hideous sectarian violence that threatened to tear the country to pieces. But in the last two years the “surge” of US troops under General David Petraeus appears to have destroyed much of the terrorists’ infrastructure and support. Now, as US troops begin their phased withdrawal, the new American-trained Iraqi army is defending the country against Islamist violence.
There will be further setbacks. But who knows, Iraq may yet even become a model for democratic change in other Arab countries. If so, who deserves some credit? The much maligned President Bush. And Tony Blair.
Will the US media give credit where credit is due for Dubya? I’m not holding my breath. It would seriously interfere with their determination to shape the history books and destroy his legacy.
But this is one day where Bush, from the confines of his private abode in Texas, must have been quietly proud… and perhaps feeling a little redeemed. Too bad it had to come from a British media.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Some things leave me speechless: http://salesianity.blogspot.com/2009/02/sometimes-i-am-just-speechless.html
-Mohammed Al-Rehaief
If the election does prove a declining influence of Iran in Iraqi politics (or proves it’s influence was exagerated), then this could be a great thing. Now I’m wondering what’s the real reason turnout was lower than expected.
I’m always for a more secular government…
Thanks for recognizing it as a “great thing”, Fit.
INRE the lower turnout…. would it not behoove you to ponder similar voter turnout numbers in the US? This was a provincial/local government election. Very much akin to our midterms.
As evidenced by our own historic US turnouts for mid term elections stats range from 36.4 to 39.8% of eligible voters for mid terms. Basing it on % of turn out to registered voters… more of an apples to apples comparison using McClatchy’s 7.5 mil voters to 14 mil registered, the 50-60 percentile isn’t all that unusual here either.
I don’t think it’s a statistic to be ashamed of… unless, of course, you’d like to equally apply any criticism of voter apathy to the US as well. There is certainly room for questioning why many here do not participate. Then again, the more I see that *do* got to the polls, uninformed, I’m frankly not all that upset.
Sure you do unfit. What you really mean is you are wondering
if you can find info that allows you to spin the lower turnout
to support your predetermined belief that Iraq is a failure.
Speaking of predetermined beliefs, you obviously never read my comments on Iraq, have you?
I purposely watched the Sunday news on all channels, and on only one, FOX, did I see this news. So, for a couple of hours, I would wait to hear it on FOX, then immediately change it to say CNN, or ABC, and then listen for at least five minutes. Nothing. Nada. Not One. Word. About the elections in Iraq.
HYPOCRITES.
I can’t think of a better example of apples to oranges than our elections vs. theirs. I would think being a nascent democracy with so much at stake there would be a great deal of interest. I’m not looking for black clouds here, I’m really just curious. Does anyone have any idea how they register for elections over there and how what percentage of eligible voters are registered? Is there anyway to blame it on ACORN?
As a side note I do have to poke one hole in your tired media bias meme:
Here’s the AP story as presented on the “uber liberal” msnbc website. Plenty of mention of the changing Iraqi electorate.
Maybe having 14,400 candidates running for offices all over Iraq was a bit….dizzying?
Some interesting numbers and take from Salam Pax:
Also, contributing to the NYTimes:
Fit #8…. that’s nice. One article, and very little cable TV news coverage of the election. And this was even before the final results. So did they run *anything* about the final results??
This hardly contradicts the media’s almost non-existant coverage on this event, Fit. Obviously, since I linked a few articles… and there were very few to be had to link *to*.. there was some coverage.
So how does this compare to the negative news that appears 24/7 on Iraq when the going ain’t going good? Fact is, to the media, good news in Iraq is just plain not news to them.
So why do you consider US elections apples to Iraq elections oranges? Bizarre statement. Please clarify.
I answered my own question, Fit. Here’s MSNBC’s milquetoast type report on the Iraq election. Doesn’t go out on a limb with kudos, and about 2/3rds of the article devoted to caveat type commentary.
Well the United States is a 220 year old constitutional republic, whereas the Iraqis, until rather recently, were signing forced blood oaths to a dictator…
And the age of the government has what to do with our election differences, pray tell?
Is it possible that the low turn out is due to many people simply being satisfied with the current direction of thier country? I realize this idea lacks nuance, and sophistication, but maybe I’m just a simpleton when it comes to big thinkin’.
Not to intentionally demean your idea and lack of nuance, Biggyrat…. but would that dissatisfaction to “their direction” you allude to be in comparison to when they had elections under Saddam??
Valid points, Mata.
It’s indeed concerning that the elections got rather under the radar coverage in the US press.
Here’s a couple of positive pieces appearing in major US mainstream media:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03bolton.html?em
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123362313953841821.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Yes, the NYT piece was an outside op-ed, but they deserve credit for publishing the editorial.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Dang, Larry… it’s almost historic that the NYT’s allowed an op-ed by John Bolton! That’s probably why it was widely ignored. LOL And, it was only published today.
The WSJ piece is good… but please note that the story is not about the Iraq elections, but the benefit of an Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East (courtesy of the CIC…. GWB, our military, the Iraqis and coalition… ). Again, it also was just published today.
I find it most interesting that the President didn’t bother to mention this historic event in his Saturday radio address.
Nothing appeared on the White House web site until late Sunday evening, and in that statement, credit was given to the UN.
Not a peep of credit, or even a mere mention, was given to the military personnel who have helped to transform the country into a place that is now capable of holding peaceful democratic elections.
You forgot to mention The Guardian is the bastion of left-wing printed media in the UK. It is mocked in the UK for being such. When I was there I used to read that or The Independent. All this whining about left-wing MSM bias and yet you highlight tjis article in the Guardian – maybe such papers do ‘occasionally’ try to give balance and give credit where credit is due.
I was *going* to mention the Guardian’s usual left tank coverage, GaffUK. Which did, BTW, make this article even more extraordinary. But figured I’d let it go and have the more informed add their own to it all.
Actually, I read all three…. Times, Indy and Guardian. A kick in the knickers, so to speak.
Gaffa, on balance which of the reporters mentioned do you think is most fair in the reporting of the elections? I’m not familiar with the work of Shawcross, how do you think his article compares with the McClatchey or Reuters reporters?
I don’t doubt that you can find a leftard somewhere that will still argue that Iraq can NEVER have an accepted/elected representative central gov. They argued it simply was not possible given their tribal affiliations, etc., Hell, even Joe Biden once offered up a 3-state solution based on tribal affiliations as the “smart” way to handle this given the history of the region.
Where these leftards have failed in their argument is in their capability to recognize and comprehend the difference between “making” history, versus reading about it in book.
It was my understanding that there are approx. 25 million people in Iraq. If the 14 million who voted was 51% does that mean if every man, woman and child even babies voted it would be 100%? How many voted in 2005? Maybe I missed something along the way. Could it possibly be that a larger percentage of eligible voters voted?
You’re darn close, BarbaraS. WorldFact book has the current Iraq population at around 26.07 million. McClatchey’s says approx 14 mil are registered. But then, it’s McClatchy’s… who knows, eh?
The 51+% is based on registered voters… not eligible voters.