January 30, 2004: An Historic Date
By Ryan Walsh (12/06/04)
In a mere two months from now, the people of Iraq will participate in the first fair and free election in their country’s history. Iraq’s truly representative representatives (275 in all) will then draft a permanent constitution and select new heads of state. There is no dispute that much is at stake.
Last week, a few impenitently pro-American Sunni and Kurdish political parties called for a six-month delay of the vote. The parties feel their country is not yet properly prepared for such a democratic undertaking, and a large fraction of the American populace seems to agree. What's more, an even larger fraction of Americans contends that an election in Iraq, be it in this coming January or the next, will never produce a legitimate government. Democracy is impossible in that region, they say.
I would say they are wrong, but they aren’t—at least not yet. The events of January 30 will prove them wrong. Here’s why.
One of the main reasons behind the push for delayed elections is the likelihood of a boycott in four predominantly Sunni provinces. But Sunni opposition was expected. Although constituting only 20 percent of the population, the Sunnis enjoyed decades of rule under fellow Sunni Saddam Hussein. It is no wonder they would oppose an election that for once factored in the other 80 percent of Iraqis. Besides, these four provinces combined only total about 7 percent of the population, so if they chose to boycott, they will have to settle for smaller Sunni representation in the National Assembly.
In no way will the four provinces’ refusal to participate render the election unfair. After all, as columnist Charles Krauthammer points out, “In 1864, 11 of the 36 United States did not participate in the presidential election. Was Abraham Lincoln’s election therefore illegitimate? In 1868, three states did not participate in the election. Was Ulysses Grant’s election illegitimate?
And don’t worry about the Shiites. Most expect them to vote in extremely high numbers. In fact, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the religious figurehead of the Shiites, has gone so far as to declare voting on January 30th a religious duty. “Under this doctrine,” political commentator Quentin Langley observed, “people who don’t vote can go to hell.”
What about the Kurds? There is no downplaying the intensity with which the Kurds (20 percent) fear a Shiite ruling majority. After all, a Shiite majority would likely contest the relatively independent status the Kurdish North now enjoys.
Yet, in spite of Kurdish concerns and Sunni objections, only some of which are reasonable, elections must be held on January 30th if not for one reason alone: free elections in Iraq will mark a monumental defeat of terrorism. If elections are delayed, on the other hand, it can only indicate that terrorist intimidation works. And it will continue.
The Bush Administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi could not be any clearer. Elections will take place on schedule. It’s time all Americans get behind this unprecedented effort, for to resist democracy in Iraq is to align with the Islamo-fascist killers and corrupt theocracies of the region, which rightly see freedom as their undoing.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ryan Walsh
