Iraq: Elections and the Impasse of US Imperialism
May 2005

By:  K. Hooshiyar & S. Karimi

With the successive crumbling of the main pillars of justification for Iraqi invasion, the Bush administration has intensified its rhetoric of "democratization" in the Middle East. The installation of a democratic government in Iraq would allegedly ignite sparks of democratic reforms in other Middle Eastern countries. Holding a "successful" election in Iraq became a key to the implementation of the American project in Middle East.  There are those however who argue that with the failure of the US military to establish security and stability in Iraq -- in light of the growing resistance to imperialist forces -- the American project in the Middle East has already reached a dead end. For them, the election was a means for the US to seek an exit strategy that did not damage US interests. The electoral quest, however, has proven to be so messy that it is difficult to conclude that the elections will bring enough peace and stability to provide the Bush administration with an honorable exit strategy, or the sparks needed to bring about the desired changes in the political landscape of the region.  The US orchestrated election in the long-term, in reality, is likely at best to be irrelevant, at worst to plunge Iraq deeper into the abyss.

The credibility of elections held under the shadow of occupation is questionable from different angles. The outcome of a managed election under which the occupying power has a free hand to engage in covert operation to skew balloting in favor of puppet candidates is difficult to present as the verdict of Iraqi people. It is in fact due to the presence of occupation and the concerns that the election would consolidate the power of those who assisted the invaders that Sunnis and progressive forces refused to participate in this managed election. While Shiites and Kurds declared their enthusiasm to follow the US deadline, prominent organizations and parties such as the influential Muslim Scholars Association and the Iraq National Foundation Conference comprising prominent Shiite, Sunni, Pan-Arabists and Marxists called for a boycott of the election. Furthermore, according to the New York Times & CBC, a majority of Iraqis abroad appeared reluctant to vote and refused to sign up for the elections. The refusal of the January 30 election by the Sunnis and progressive secular organizations will inevitably tarnish the legitimacy of the election outcome, which in turn is bound to further intensify religious and sectarian divisions in Iraq.

In addition, the eclipse of political debate casts further doubt on the democratic nature of process of election. It is due to the fear of attacks by Iraqi resistance that neither the candidate names nor the places of polling locations have been specified. Under a "campaign in shadow" or "the first stealth election campaign in history", as a Western diplomat put it, the process of election suffered from the absence of policy debate and normal democratic ritual of communication between candidates and voters. Furthermore, the UN and other international organizations refused to go to Iraq to supervise the election.  In the absence of international monitoring, the confidence in the outcome of Iraqi election is bound to be undermined.  As Simon Chesleman, the head of the Institute for International Law and Justice at New York University, has pointed out "elections whose results are not believed are worse than no elections at all".

Lack of credibility and procedural abnormalities are not the only problematic issues in this election.  As Sabah Al Mukhtar, the London-based President of the League of Arab Lawyers argues, the election is not alone fatally flawed, it is illegal. "Under the Vienna Convention, an occupying force has no right to change the composition of occupied territories socially, culturally, educationally or politically. This election was based on the laws laid down by former 'Viceroy' American Paul Bremer and is entirely unconstitutional. Bremer personally appointed the overseers for the election."

Far from 'free and fair' and heralding Iraqi 'democracy' they are entirely engineered by the Bush administration to serve specific imperialist interests. After all, no election in a country invaded and controlled by foreign troops can conceivably be regarded as free and fair. Holding elections under the umbrella of occupation, the refusal of a large portion of the population to participate in the election, the lack of policy debates and the absence of credible international monitoring agencies are cumulatively geared to depict this managed election as a theatrical exhibition of democratization. The doubt over the legitimacy of the outcome of Iraqi election would not only embolden the Iraqi resistance to intensify their operation but it would also have "a great potential for deepening the conflict" between Shiites and Sunnis as Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advise, has suggested. Instead of facilitating the imperial reconfiguration of the region, the Iraqi election has a potent potential to exacerbate the quagmire in which the United States has plunged.

www.iranreview.com