Three years ago on October 15, Iraqis went to the polls for a tense election showdown between Saddam Hussein and himself. The razor-thin margin of victory was a mere .01%... under 100%. Five months later, the referendum lead by US tanks and fighter jets produced a slightly different outcome.
Three years later, October 15 sees another election. This time, thanks to a relative lack of terror attacks, we get to see civil society in action on a national scale. The results of the constitutional referendum are not guaranteed - and so individual Iraqis seem to understand that their vote makes a difference in determining the outcome. And even if the constitution indeed passes, various interests groups will be able to continue to shape its form through parliamentary debate and negotiation.
It's not perfect. And the celebration seems more muted than last January. We know that democratic elections do not inherently mean an end to strife and terror. Recovery from decades of dictatorship is a slow, hard slog. Relapses can be frequent and sudden.
Perhaps the occassion is best marked by the quiet dignity of the woman above, photographed while voting at a precinct south of Baghdad. She is not clad in an abaya or flashing a purple-inked finger triumphantly. Sunglasses partially mask her identity. She walks from the voting counter to deposit her ballot in the plastic box with a sort of ginger determination. She seems all too aware that her world is fragile and that she has limited ability to shape it. But she is voting nonetheless, taking a small step forward, heading toward the light.
And yet I seem to remember about the same amount of press coverage of the 'election' three years ago as we now see on yesterday's election.
I wonder why that is? You would think yesterday's election would be really important news for our media.
Posted by: Les Nessman | October 16, 2005 at 10:16 AM
I can't imagine a more appropriate photo or description of the Iraqi constitutional vote. As long as we are going to have our news interpreted for us, this is the way it should be.
Well done!
Posted by: Crusty | October 16, 2005 at 12:29 PM
Google will find you pictures of people voting in Iran. Women, too. Why is the democracy in Iraq "awakening a civil rights movement in the middle east", but the country next door is a democracy that also happens to be one of the biggest threats to our security in the world right now?
Posted by: a1b2 | October 16, 2005 at 02:02 PM
Iran is a democracy? Didn't over 1,000 people apply to run for president in the last election? And didn't a committee of religious authorities cut that down to only 9, all male and all religious fanatics like themselves? And wasn't there widespread ballotbox-stuffing to turn an actual 12% turnout into a nominal 60+%? Does that sound like a democracy to you? If so, you are very naive, to put it politely.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil | October 16, 2005 at 02:29 PM
Iran a Democracy?! No one should be surprised at this mega-lib conclusion... this is what they are teaching at our fine colleges-- that "other countries" like Iran have perfectly acceptable "democracies".
I bet this person also believed everything the former Iraqi "information minister" said... haha
Posted by: Michael | October 16, 2005 at 05:09 PM
Maybe he was talking about Mexico, not Iran...?
Posted by: Kiteflyer | October 16, 2005 at 06:01 PM
Heh. If you really believed that flaws in the voting process, flaws in how the proposed constitution was put together, back room deals to try to patch together a shaky process, etc., disqualified a "democracy" from being called a "democracy", you wouldn't be cheering so loudly for the Iraq elections.
***** this is what they are teaching at our fine colleges-- that "other countries" like Iran have perfectly acceptable "democracies". *****
Obviously they aren't teaching reading comprehension at whatever school turned you out. The claim isn't that Iran is a "perfectly acceptable democracy". Just the opposite, in fact. The claim is that the "democracy" in Iran is *not* acceptable. Iran is a worse threat to us now than Iraq was under Saddam. In Iraq we've sacrificed American lives to install a "democracy" in which Islamic religious law is explicitly a fundamental part of how the country will be run. That's in the constitution you're so eager to celebrate.
Plus, you both have the basic facts about Iran's "democracy" wrong. The hard-core clerics *lost* power in the last elections. Ayatollah Khamenei is less of a force as a result. The voting wasn't perfect (neither was it in Iraq) but it wasn't as bad a syou try to paint it. If it were, the positive changes could not have occurred. The hard-core right was deeply entrenched, has been for decades, so if they lose power it's a good sign that the election was at least partially legitimate.
In the long run, hopefully the hard-core right wing in Iran will lose even more power, and eventually be marginalized to the point that Iran is no longer a big threat to us. Perhaps the same will happen in Iraq, too.
Posted by: a1b2 | October 16, 2005 at 06:15 PM
What 'a1b2' writes is demonstrably false. The hard-core right wing did not lose power in the Iranian pseudo-election, it gained power. Here is what the BBC (no friend of the Bush administration) said about the Iranian election on June 25th:
Headline:
"Iran hardliner sweeps to victory"
Pertinent paragraphs of story:
"The ultra-conservative mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won a landslide victory in Iran's presidential poll.
"Mr Ahmadinejad won 62% of votes, defying predictions of a close race, to defeat the more moderate ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
. . . .
"His victory means all the organs of the Iranian state are now in the hands of conservative hardliners.
. . . .
"Mr Ahmadinejad has also pledged to tackle corruption and resist Western "decadence".
"His defeated rival Mr Rafsanjani, 70, was president from 1989-97. He was the favourite going into the election and had re-cast himself as a liberal who was more willing to engage with the West.
. . . .
"Interior ministry officials monitoring polling stations received some 300 complaints of electoral violations in Tehran alone, the Associated Press news agency reports.
"The Guardian Council, which ran the poll, has dismissed allegations of election fraud."
So how can 'a1b2' claim that the more moderate candidate won? Is he (a) stupid, (b) insane, or (c) a liar? If (c), is he paid to lie by (e.g.) the Iranian government, or does he do it just for the pure joy of doing evil? Please note: these possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
Of course, he omits the fact that the Guardian Council did not allow anyone except hard-liners to run, and excluded all women as well, and that there are credible charges (even mentioned by the BBC) that the election was fixed. I mentioned all these things: why does 'a1b2' ignore or dismiss them? There are three possibilities . . . .
Posted by: Dr. Weevil | October 16, 2005 at 07:11 PM
Since TypePad seems to have stripped out the BBC link in my previous comment, I'll try giving it as text:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4621249.stm
If that doesn't come through, just Google "Iran election results" and make sure you have the 2005 BBC story, which is on the first page.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil | October 16, 2005 at 07:12 PM
These information helps me consider some useful things, keep up the good work.
Posted by: jordan 11 | June 11, 2011 at 03:57 AM