Why Iraqis Should Boycott the Election

  • News
  • Thread starter Polly
  • Start date
In summary: The article mentions that many Iraqi political activists believe the coming election results have been decided already. They also believe the electoral process will not be free and democratic but will be exclusively for those who maintain strong ties with the US occupation authorities. The US administration works hard to portray the Iraq election as a political achievement to cover over the scar that the war has left on its credibility.
  • #1
Polly
94
0
An account that is moderate and commonsensically enough.


Why Iraqis should boycott the election
by Mohammed al-Obaidi
Friday 03 December 2004

Forty seven Iraqi political parties met on 17 November and made the decision to boycott the coming Iraq election. The People's Struggle Movement (al-Kifah al-Shabi), which I represent, was one of those groups.

After carefully studying Iraq’s situation, considering the military occupation as well as economic and national interests, we felt there were enough reasons for any patriotic Iraqi to boycott the proposed January election.

It is a violation of all international laws. International charters that regulate the relationship between occupier and occupied do not give occupying authorities the mandate to instigate a change in the country's social, economic and political structure.

The planned election will change the political composition of Iraq to suit the interests of the occupation authorities. The change will also lead to ethnic, sectarian and religious divisions that the Iraqi state and people had succeeded to avoid.

Historically, Iraqis have been able to coexist and the spectre of civil war did not loom until the country was stricken by the US-led occupation.

Many Iraqi political activists believe the coming election results have been decided already. They also believe the electoral process will not be free and democratic but will be exclusively for those who maintain strong ties with the US occupation authorities. We feel that all steps have been taken to secure full US domination of decision makers in Iraq.

A look at the electoral process and the composition of the current national council reveals that the election's main mission will be to install some of the country’s most notorious politicians who have constantly spoken proudly of their links to international intelligence agencies.

The coming election will give power to every politician who has assisted the invaders and collaborated with them to consolidate the occupation. Therefore, we believe that even after the election, the decision-making process will be taken in the US embassy in Baghdad and the elected government will be no more than a vehicle to carry out Washington’s decisions.

It is very difficult for any sensible person to believe that the US would give up its domination of Iraq after spending billions of dollars and sacrificing the lives of hundreds of its soldiers.

We cannot believe that after all this the US will simply allow free and democratic election to take place in Iraq that could install a government which could make it its first priority to tell foreign troops to get out.

We strongly believe that the main purpose of the election process is to secure a government that will facilitate long-lasting agreements with the US to keep its forces on Iraqi soil and transform the country into an American colony.

The US administration works hard to portray the Iraq election as a political achievement to cover over the scar that the war has left on its credibility.

Washington will use the election card to pull the wool over the eyes of the international community to prevent it from seeing the tragic consequences that the war has left on the Iraqi people.

For all these reasons, many Iraqi political activists feel it is their national duty to boycott the 30 January election.

[Professor Mohammed al-Obaidi is the spokesman for the People’s Struggle Movement (Al-Kifah Al-Sha’abi) in Iraq, and works as a University Professor in the UK. He was born and educated in al-Adhamiyah district in Baghdad. This article, was written exclusively for Aljazeera.net, and was translated from Arabic.]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D1C660D3-31C9-44C5-925F-4070AC17D606.htm

Reason of edit: To enable better focus on the arguments themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Al-Jazeera is moderate? that's like saying the American media is fair and balanced
 
  • #3
Umm, I've read that "opinion" piece and it's one sided, hardly moderate.
 
  • #4
:biggrin: Then we must lovingly agree to disagree. I honestly believe his reasoning is dispassionate and so natural that it almost goes without saying. Anyway.
 
  • #5
Polly said:
:biggrin: Then we must lovingly agree to disagree. I honestly believe his reasoning is dispassionate and so natural that it almost goes without saying. Anyway.

I lovingly... :wink: nevermind
 
  • #6
I think he makes one or two very good points I hadn't thought about before.
 
  • #7
Bush needs the election to take place this January so he can declare that Iraq is free and move on to the next nation that he will be taking over.
 
  • #8
I view it as home improvement. Fix’er up, move the happy homeowner back in, and on to the next project, Iran, NK, and France... Sorry Canada, we have to prioritize.

...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
I don't get it, why is france being picked on for disagreeing with the US, but everyone's just ignoring Germany, and Sweden, and even Canada. Am I missing a whole spectrum here?
 
  • #10
Smurf said:
…Am I missing a whole spectrum here?

Here, there, and everywhere.

Smurf said:
I don't get it, why is france being picked on for disagreeing with the US, but everyone's just ignoring Germany, and Sweden, and even Canada.

France suffers under a corrupt, morally bankrupt leadership. Canada can’t be blamed for having to tolerate Quebec. Sweden and Germany are properly evolving.
 
  • #11
I think france was first to not approve of the war, but I'm not sure. Or was france the one who was going to veto because they were an ally with iran, or iraq? Either way france is somewhere up on the list. And I don't think Bush is going to ignore Germany, Sweeden, and Canada, he just has other countries that he needs to take care of first.
 
  • #12
Polly said:
We strongly believe that the main purpose of the election process is to secure a government that will facilitate long-lasting agreements with the US to keep its forces on Iraqi soil and transform the country into an American colony.

I was at least giving this guy the benefit of the doubt until this. It should be clear to anyone following the war that there are no scenarios in which the US maintains a permanent military occupation, or turns Iraq into a "colony." I can understand his thinking that the new regime is likely to be friendly to the US, but I cannot see why he would think alliance with the only superpower in the world is a bad thing.
 
  • #13
I had some other problems with this - some parts are factually inaccurate, and others misleading at best. In particular:

The change will also lead to ethnic ... divisions that the Iraqi state and people had succeeded to avoid.

which is somewhat hard to swallow given all I remember hearing on the media about Kurds.

Also,

Historically, Iraqis have been able to coexist and the spectre of civil war did not loom until the country was stricken by the US-led occupation.

neglects to mention that rule by iron fist may have had something to do with the lack of civil war.



One important thing that seems to be missing is, ironically, is an exit plan. Suppose they succeed in undermining the work to create a new Iraqi government... then what?
 
  • #14
GENIERE said:
France suffers under a corrupt, morally bankrupt leadership. Canada can’t be blamed for having to tolerate Quebec. Sweden and Germany are properly evolving.
If you can make a good argument for that statement and defend other european nations as well as your own against the same accusations I would love to hear it (i'm being serious)
 

1. Why should Iraqis boycott the election?

Iraqis should boycott the election as a form of protest against the current government and the flawed electoral system. Many Iraqis believe that their votes will not make a difference in the outcome of the election and that the government does not truly represent their interests.

2. What will be the impact of an Iraqi boycott on the election?

The impact of an Iraqi boycott on the election will depend on the level of participation. If a significant portion of the population boycotts the election, it could undermine the legitimacy of the results and bring attention to the flaws in the electoral system. However, if the boycott is not widespread, it may not have a significant impact on the outcome.

3. Won't boycotting the election only lead to further political instability?

While boycotting the election may contribute to short-term political instability, it can also be seen as a way to bring attention to the issues and demand change. By not participating in a flawed election, Iraqis are sending a message that they want a fair and representative government.

4. Are there any alternative ways for Iraqis to voice their grievances besides boycotting the election?

Yes, there are alternative ways for Iraqis to voice their grievances, such as peaceful protests and advocating for electoral reform. However, boycotting the election can be a powerful statement and a way to demand change in the current political system.

5. Is boycotting the election a violation of democratic principles?

Some may argue that boycotting the election goes against democratic principles, as every citizen has the right to vote and participate in the political process. However, others argue that boycotting is a form of exercising one's democratic right to express dissatisfaction with the current system. Ultimately, the decision to boycott or participate in the election is a personal choice for each individual Iraqi citizen.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top