Ayatollah al-Sistani threatens to boycott January elections in Iraq

[BrainGlutton]

From the New York Time, September 22, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/international/middleeast/23sistani.html?hp:

According to people with knowledge of the talks, Ayatollah Sistani is concerned that the nascent democratic process here is falling under the control of a handful of the largest political parties, which cooperated with the American occupation and are comprised largely of exiles.

In particular, these sources say, Ayatollah Sistani is worried about discussions now under way among those parties to form a single ticket for the elections, thus limiting the choices of voters and smothering smaller political parties.

Ayatollah Sistani, who earlier this year sent tens of thousands of Iraqis into the streets to demand early elections, is said to be worried that a “consensus list” of candidates from the larger political parties would artificially limit the power of the Shiites, who form a majority in the country.

Under an agreement reached among exile groups in the early 1990’s, the Shiites were said to make up about 55 percent of the population. Ayatollah Sistani, the sources say, believes the Shiite population has swelled since then and therefore would be underrepresented on any list based on a 55 percent figure.

Ayatollah Sistani also expressed concerns that the Iraqi government, possibly under American pressure, would postpone the elections on the pretext that the anarchical conditions that prevail over parts of the country would make the results illegitimate, the sources said.

According to an Iraqi close to Ayatollah Sistani who spoke at length with him last weekend, the ayatollah is so upset about the prospect that the Shiites might be underrepresented that he is prepared to withdraw his support for the elections if his concerns are not addressed. It is unclear, however, what specific demands he has made.

"If he sees that what this is leading to is unfair and unfree elections, then he will not take part in it,’’ the Iraqi said. “He will declare the elections to be illegitimate.”

The activity by Ayatollah Sistani represents a reassertion of his efforts to ensure that the country’s long-suppressed Shiite Arabs translate their majority status into political power. In the months since the Americans toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Sistani has largely stayed away from engaging in the minutiae of partisan politics, but he has aggressively pushed the Americans, the United Nations and the Iraqi government to hold democratic elections as soon as possible.

The prospect of a boycott by Ayatollah Sistani could have severe consequences. The grand ayatollah, the senior cleric among the Shiite religious hierarchy, commands vast respect among ordinary Iraqis, many of whom could be counted on to give serious consideration to a pronouncement by him about the elections. An association of Sunni clerics has already announced that they will boycott the election.

So what does this development portend for Iraq? Is there any hope that the elections will come off as scheduled and that (most of) the Iraqi people will accept their results?

[elucidator]

They should never have promised it so soon. Looks like they fell into the trap of believing their own press releases. Now even if circumstances force a postponement and Jimmy Carter swears on a stack of Qurans that it’s a legitimate postponement…it’s still straight out of the ObL playbook.

It depends on Alawi. If he shows sufficient leadership ability and keen foresight and wisdom, and correctly determines which side his bread is buttered, he may be reluctantly burdened with the task of guiding the Iraqi people towards democracy-related program activities.

Does anyone really believe that if all indications were that a free and fair election in Iraq would install a Shia theocracy…that the USA would permit such an election to go forward? Neither are we prepared to accept the consequences if we are seen reneging. Between Iraq and a hard place, we are, as the French say, fuqued.

Expect to be hearing that what Iraq really needs is strong leadership and firm authority. Law and order.

[Squink]

To get to the point were Sistani can be a problem, we have to get through October’s census in Iraq with enough credibility to make elections possible. That’s not looking so good:

Tauscher was one of six Congressional representatives who left the nation’s capital a week ago to see conditions in Iraq first-hand.
…
Tauscher said plans for Iraqis go to the polls in January to elect a national government don’t appear to be far along.

“The plans for the January election are lagging,” Tauscher said. “There is no census grid, no precinct maps. … In essence, America’s occupation of Iraq has done desperately little to get this country back on its feet and moving toward a ‘little d’ democracy.”

Iraq Aims to Conduct Census in Single Day

Iraq is planning to send 150,000 schoolteachers on a one-day mission to knock on every door and conduct the first census since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

If somehow the census goes OK, then Sistani’s threat of boycott lands us in merely very deep shit.

[PatriotX]

no Sistani - no legitimacy
no legitimacy - no peace
no peace - well you know the rest

[BrainGlutton]

OK, let’s assume a worst-case scenario (always a safe assumption when discussing Iraq nowadays): The census is carried out but under such difficult conditions that the results appear suspect to some vocal elements in Iraqi society. Alawi decides to proceed with the election anyway, basing the districting process (or whatever they’re planning to use to elect their new parliament) either on those results, or on the results of some older census done during Hussein’s rule. Sistani protests, for reasons outlined in the OP, and encourages all Iraqi Shi’ites to boycott the elections. About half of them do. The elections produce an elected government, but it lacks perceived legitimacy. Alawi hands over the reins to it anyway. While all this is going on, the Coalition troops still haven’t left Iraq, and the insurgents remain in control of several Iraqi cities, and there are still several combat deaths, bombing deaths, and kidnappings being racked up every month.

What happens then?

[Squink]

@BrainGlutton

The elections produce an elected government, but it lacks perceived legitimacy…
What happens then?

That’s covered under Rumsfeld’s reduced expectations talk:

“If there were to be an area where the extremists focused during the election period, and an election was not possible in that area at that time, so be it. You have the rest of the election and you go on. Life’s not perfect,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee

We go on. We stay the course, whatever that may be with an illegitimate government in charge of the country.

[BrainGlutton]

@Squink

That’s covered under Rumsfeld’s reduced expectations talk:

We go on. We stay the course, whatever that may be with an illegitimate government in charge of the country.

IOW, Allawi might hand over the govenment to a sort of rump parliament – an incomplete parliament with some districts’ seats left vacant because of the impossibility of conducting elections there?

I don’t think that’s going to work.