# Iraq Election: Shia win less than outright majority **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927 "2005-02-13T22:56:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/21 "2005-02-15T16:34:36Z")
Why is it odd? The Shi’a voted overwhelmingly for one party, certainly by US standards, but not entirely for one party. Allawi’s Iraqi list party took mostly Shi’a votes and got 13%, for example. Heck, assign even just the overall population’s 60% of those votes to Shi’ites and you’re at 55% for that group overall. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/22 "2005-02-15T16:37:27Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > He is an Iranian mullah himself, and a vociferous advocate of theocracy following the Iranian model. Cite? From the link to [Asia Times](http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB10Ak02.html) in your Wikipedia link (my bolding): > [@](#): > > In theory, he supported the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, but he grew disenchanted by Khomeini’s theocracy. **Sistani believed that government should be run by politicians, not clergymen** , whose duty would be to maintain law and order and to run economic affairs, day-to-day politics and foreign relations. The clergy should not become politicians, he stressed, because this would corrupt them and distort their religious message. Instead, they should limit themselves to spiritual and religious matters in which the politicians cannot pass sound judgment. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/23 "2005-02-15T16:45:02Z")
Well, we’ll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, the [Prime Minister](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4267091.stm) has been chosen (Jaafari - I admit I know nothing of him) and it seems that a Kurdish _president_ (less powerful in a parilamentary democracy than in a presidential democracy) might be all that is required for the supermajority. After the constitution is ratified, the Shia 48% could beome a majority simply by appealing to a smaller group: heck, even the _communists_ might be enough. They could _certainly_ strengthen their grip on power by making noises about future Kurdish independence, which would give Turkey the willies and risk destabilising the whole region. One thing is more certain, however: [Allawi is screwed](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4266521.stm), and the abysmal Sunni Arab turnout suggests that they are far more interested in insurgency than democracy. In a generation or two, Iraq might not even _exist_, only a bigger Iran and Saudi Arabia and a new country called Kurdistan. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/24 "2005-02-15T16:50:32Z")
> [@](#): > > the abysmal Sunni Arab turnout suggests that they are far more interested in insurgency than democracy. Uh, no. It suggests that _some_ of them are interested in insurgency. Others _were_, but are not following the success of the elections. Others were never interested in insurgency but boycotted the election nonetheless because they thought at the time that the best way to make their political points was to join an organized boycott. Still others weren’t even interested in boycotting but stayed home out of fear. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/25 "2005-02-15T16:52:57Z")
**John** , yes, I certainly overstated the case there: Iran is _less_ democratic than Sistani favours, but I understand that he still strongly advocates Sharia Law and other important elements of theocracy - his fantasy Iraqi government wouldn’t look _that_ much different to Iran’s, IMO. And all his statements from the last few decades were made under threat of assassination for the slightest undiplomatic phrase or suggestion. I think we’ll have to wait and see what he _really_ advocates. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/26 "2005-02-15T17:01:06Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Why is it odd?.. Because the Sunni didn’t vote much, to speak of. And, just as you say, the Shia voted “overwhelmingly” for the Sistani party. Hence, of the resulting pool of cast votes, the Shia should represent rather more than 60%, since the Sunnis were no shows. Roughly, what? 70 to 80% of the votes cast were cast by Shia, who, just as you say, voted “overwhelmingly” for the Sistani agenda. And yet…by one of those near miraculous coincidences… the Sistani candidates didn’t manage to get more than 50% of the resulting vote. Which is odd. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/27 "2005-02-15T17:03:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Sistani believed that government should be run by politicians, not clergymen, whose duty would be to maintain law and order and to run economic affairs, day-to-day politics and foreign relations. The clergy should not become politicians, he stressed, because this would corrupt them and distort their religious message. Instead, they should limit themselves to spiritual and religious matters in which the politicians cannot pass sound judgment. Well **John** , all that says is that Sistani doesn’t feel that clerics should undertake the actual running of the government. It still leaves him plenty of room to advocate basing government on Islamic principles. As of last year (before it appeared inevitable that Sistani was going to be a major player in the new Iraqi government), some conservatives were indeed worried about his [theocratic tendencies](http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20040526.shtml), which in some respects seemed possibly **more** extreme than Khomeini’s: > [@](#): > > Policymakers ought to carefully examine the similarities and differences between Sistani and Ayatollah Khomeini, the late Shiite cleric who sparked the Islamic revolution in Iran. > > One difference between Khomeini and Sistani is that Khomeini would actually meet with Westerners, including female Western reporters. Sistani won’t even meet with Ambassador Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. […] > > Another difference between Khomeini and Sistani is that when Khomeini communicated with the West in the days before the Iranian revolution, he made soothing noises about free elections, political pluralism and women’s rights. When Sistani communicates with the West today, he speaks about free elections (which would empower his own Iraqi Shiite base, which makes up 65 percent of Iraq’s population), but he doesn’t tout pluralism or women’s rights. […] > > Last November, Sistani ally Abdul Aziz al Hakim explained the ayatollah’s objection to a U.S. plan to hold caucuses to pick an interim government. “There should have been a stipulation which prevents legislating anything that contradicts Islam in the new Iraq,” he said. > > In April, The New York Times reported: “Ayatollah Sistani’s supporters want Islam to govern such matters as family law, divorce and women’s rights.” […] > > Khomeini may have shared Sistani’s values here, but his pre-revolutionary propaganda was better packaged for the West. […] > > Washington Post correspondent Ronald Koven also interviewed Khomeini and some of Khomeini’s aides. “The aides say he rejects the authoritarian models of Islamic republicanism in much of the Arab world. Iran is not an Arab country,” wrote Koven. “The aide quoted Khomeini as saying, ‘In the history of Islam, those who denied God were free to express themselves.’ This, said the aide, is Khomeini’s way of saying all political parties would be legal in his vision of an Islamic republic to be established in a national referendum.” > > Why did the man who installed a theocracy in Iran in 1979 say these things in France in 1978? Perhaps he was practicing “taqiyya,” the Shiite doctrine that Grand Ayatollah Sistani blandly defines on his Web site as: “Dissimulation about one’s beliefs in order to protect oneself, family, or property from harm.” Sistani has written an unpublished treatise on this doctrine. Is it wise to assume he is not practicing it today in his dealings with a U.S. occupational force? I certainly hope that Sistani **does** turn out to be at least a wise quasi-secularist. But I think it would be foolish to take it for granted that he “doesn’t advocate religion mixed with politics” just because he says he’s “against the mullaocracy”. Khomeini used to say that he was against it too. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/28 "2005-02-15T17:11:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Saudi Arabia What guarantees do you have Saudi Arabia will exist with the instability it has now? > [@](#): > > only a bigger Iran Other than the fact Iraqi Shias are _Arabs_ and that millions of them fought and died in the 8 year war aganst Iran, I have doubts Iran will incorporate anything. Even if they incorporated it as a satellite state, the resentment of the people would eventually turn to our favour, so they’re screwed either way. > [@](#): > > They could certainly strengthen their grip on power by making noises about future Kurdish independence, which would give Turkey the willies and risk destabilising the whole region. Kurds will lose alot if they declare independence, they’ll lose everything they’ve worked for since the establishment of no fly zones in 1992. They’ll go for the federalist model, as this is the only way to ensure their complete rights and autonomy, with the protection of the state as well. [http://home.cogeco.ca/~kobserver/27-4-03-kurds-offer-model-irq.html](http://home.cogeco.ca/~kobserver/27-4-03-kurds-offer-model-irq.html) > [@](#): > > In the meantime, said Barkey, the Kurds of northern Iraq will work hard to preserve whatever independence they can under the federal system of government envisioned by planners in the Bush administration. “They have worked very hard, and suffered a lot, to get where they are,” ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/29 "2005-02-15T17:14:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Because the Sunni didn’t vote much, to speak of. And, just as you say, the Shia voted “overwhelmingly” for the Sistani party. Hence, of the resulting pool of cast votes, the Shia should represent rather more than 60%, since the Sunnis were no shows. Roughly, what? 70 to 80% of the votes cast were cast by Shia, who, just as you say, voted “overwhelmingly” for the Sistani agenda. > > And yet…by one of those near miraculous coincidences… the Sistani candidates didn’t manage to get more than 50% of the resulting vote. > > Which is odd. Translation, the elections are rigged, and you all know it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/30 "2005-02-15T17:14:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Which is odd. Still not seeing it. If the Sunnis were 0-shows, just for simplicity’s sake, Shi’a would be 75% of the remaining assuming equal turnout among Kurds and Shi’a. Say two thirds of Shi’ites voted for UIA – certainly overwhelming by US standards. That means (heh) 49.5% for that party. Add in that Kurdish turnout was higher than Shi’ite turnout and that Sunni turnout was above zero (unhappily not _much_ above zero, but there will be more elections) and you’ve got a surprise that that single party did as well as it did, not as poorly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/31 "2005-02-15T17:15:34Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **John** , yes, I certainly overstated the case there: Iran is _less_ democratic than Sistani favours, but I understand that he still strongly advocates Sharia Law and other important elements of theocracy - his fantasy Iraqi government wouldn’t look _that_ much different to Iran’s, IMO. That’s unclear, but even if it he wants Sharia law, he probably won’t get it. There is no reason to believe that the Kurdish and Sunni Arab provinces would ratify a constitution with a Shi’a version of Sharia law. It only takes 3 provinces to veto the consititution, and the Kurds and Sunni Arabs each have enough to force a veto by themselves. The key element of Iranian “democracy” that surely will not be transplanted to Iraq is the power of an unelected Council of Guardians to veto candidates for any election. If Iran’s electoral process did not have that feature, that country would be a true democracy, and it would have an entirely different set of politicians running it today. While the possibility of an all-out civil war in Iraq is real, and while it still may break apart in the future, the possibility of an Iranian style government is very remote-- there are too many internal (and external) factors working against it. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/32 "2005-02-15T17:26:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And yet…by one of those near miraculous coincidences… the Sistani candidates didn’t manage to get more than 50% of the resulting vote. They did get more then 50% of the vote. See **Tamerlane’s** post. Also look at **Squink’s** link to turnout by province, the northern (Kurdish) provinces had higher turnout then the southern (Shia) provinces. Finally I think that the Kurds went to the polls with one issue in mind, autonomy, and thus voted for one party. The Shia, on the other hand, split their vote between the more religious party (UIA) and a minority voted for the more secular Allawi party. I think your being too quick to jump to paranoid conclusions > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, the new National Assembly is also charged with forming a new government, which will rule Iraq until a new constitution is ratified – i.e., at least until December 2005. So then can they do this with their 51%, without having to draw on other parties for votes? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/33 "2005-02-15T18:01:07Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Well, we’ll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, the [Prime Minister](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4267091.stm) has been chosen (Jaafari - I admit I know nothing of him)… [Not quite yet.](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&e=6&u=/ap/20050215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_politics) It seems the race is down to Jaafari and Chalabi. > [@](#): > > “There is almost a general consensus between most of the main political parties in the alliance on the nomination of Ibrahim al-Jaafari,” said Adnan Ali, his chief of staff. > > Ali said there would be no announcement for two days. > > Hussein al-Mousawi, a spokesman for the Shiite Political Council, an umbrella group for 38 Shiite political parties, said Chalabi would most likely be the next prime minister. That bit about 38 political parties, also helps to clarify the notion that Shiites ‘won a majority, or not’. Even if they did, it’s just an ‘umbrella group’ that has a majority. There’s little indication that the umbrella will coalesce into a single unified party. sorry about the metaphor mangling, that umbrella bit doesn’t supply much to work with. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/34 "2005-02-15T20:12:31Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > …your being too quick to jump to paranoid conclusions… Perhaps. There is far more murk than clarity in the situation, one can only presume so much. But clearly, the Bushiviks had a dog in the fight. They dream about an elected Shia theocracy taking power in Iraq and wake up screaming. So it was very important that the Shia party most inclined to theocracy and Sharia _not_ get more than 50% of the vote. By a whisker, this appears to be the case. Friend **Manny** almost agrees. He agrees that the “overwhelming” majority of Shia voters voted for the Sharia oriented party, but pegs his definition of “overwhelming” at precisely 2/3, which, by another remarkable coincidence, gives him the 49.5% result he needs. I have no definition of “overwhelming” to offer, but regard 2/3 as a bit scant. YMathMV. So what you have is a series of improbabilites, IMHO, with results that, by the skin of the teeth, favor the Bushivik fantasy of a secular, federalized Iraq. So, of course, it is possible I am too paranoid. I am only suspicious, not convinced, and despair of any complete clarity. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/35 "2005-02-15T20:19:58Z")
> [@](#): > > But clearly, the Bushiviks had a dog in the fight. They dream about an elected Shia theocracy taking power in Iraq and wake up screaming. So it was very important that the Shia party most inclined to theocracy and Sharia not get more than 50% of the vote. By a whisker, this appears to be the case. Oh give me a break, I knew it’d take someone to come out and say the election was fake, because somehow the Shia didn’t take the two thirds they needed them too in order to prove Bush was wrong, and Iraq was becoming the next Iran. Get over it. > [@](#): > > So what you have is a series of improbabilites, IMHO, with results that, by the skin of the teeth, favor the Bushivik fantasy of a secular, federalized Iraq. So, of course, it is possible I am too paranoid. I am only suspicious, not convinced, and despair of any complete clarity. You got that right. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/36 "2005-02-15T20:37:24Z")
I am chastened by your rock-solid cites and evidence, **Ryan**. How can argue with someone like yourself who has all the relevent facts at his fingertips? But I hasten to point out that I did not say the election, as a totality, was fake. Only that it strikes me as odd. One needn’t bugger an entire election process to shave a bit here, a bit there. I am not sure, merely suspicious. You are entirely certain that my suspicions are unfounded. Very well, besides my obvious political slant, have you any other facts to support that conclusion, or are you content to rely with complete confidence on White House press releases? ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/37 "2005-02-15T20:40:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So it was very important that the Shia party most inclined to theocracy and Sharia not get more than 50% of the vote. By a whisker, this appears to be the case. But as has been stated, the Shia did receive more then 50% of the seats, so if the election was rigged to prevent this outcome, the riggers did a crummy job. > [@](#): > > I have no definition of “overwhelming” to offer, but regard 2/3 as a bit scant. YMathMV. **Manny** was presuming that turn out was the same in Kurdish areas and Shiite ones, so in reality the precentage was probably more then 2/3. And that the Shiites didn’t all vote in lock step really doesn’t seem that suprising to me, certainly it’s a lot more likely then that the elections were rigged to give a result the US might of kind of sort of prefered. > [@](#): > > So what you have is a series of improbabilites, IMHO, with results that, by the skin of the teeth, favor the Bushivik fantasy of a secular, federalized Iraq. It doesn’t seem too favorable to that, as already stated the Shia party still has the majority. Also, Bush’s clear favorite to win the election was Allawi’s party, which did worse then expected. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/38 "2005-02-15T21:08:58Z")
Just checking: Everyone in this thread is aware that the 50% thing is a purely symbolic number and that it takes 2/3 to form a government or proffer a constitution. Everyone knows that, right? ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/39 "2005-02-15T21:15:28Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > pegs his definition of “overwhelming” at precisely 2/3… To be clear, I did no such thing. I picked an entirely hypothetical number which is a) not unreasonable in absense of differing data and b) reaches the result which the election commission announced. There was no attempt to be precise about anything, merely to show a not-unreasonable path to a conclusion which you found odd. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927/40 "2005-02-15T22:14:34Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Just checking: Everyone in this thread is aware that the 50% thing is a purely symbolic number and that it takes 2/3 to form a government or proffer a constitution. Everyone knows that, right? No. While I’m aware of the second part (2/3 majority necessary to form a government or ratify a constitution), that doesn’t imply that the 50% thing is symbolic. The assembly elected two weeks ago will be Iraq’s functioning legislative branch until a new constitution is ratified. And there’s apparently nothing to suggest that 138 votes out of 275 will be insufficient to pass legislation during 2005. That’s not exactly symbolic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-election-shia-win-less-than-outright-majority/289927.md?page=3)