With only one candidate, and fully 100% of the vote going to Saddam Hussein, why did the Iraqis even bother with an election. It seems like a huge waste of money and energy. After all, they’ve got their “weapons of mass destruction” to build and maintain. :rolleyes:
So, seriously, what is the point of having one-candidate elections? Couldn’t they just throw a big party, proclaim how wonderful Saddam is, and be done with it? It’s not like the rest of the civilized world thinks that democracy has suddenly arrived in Iraq and that Saddam is universally loved. Who are they fooling?
The election was a great excuse for Saddam to stage a nationwide party. The news footage made it appear that a lot of people were having a good time. That’s ALWAYS good politics.
At least one news report I heard indicated that we shouldn’t assume that in Iraq “election” means the same thing as we (US) are used to, i.e. an occasion to select leadership by some voting process. In the Iraq case its is more of a “vote of confidence”. I freely admit I don’t know Iraq’s laws or how it would deal with removing an incumbent or otherwise getting someone else into power.
Yeah, a vote of confidence where if you don’t vote for the guy you get shot. There is no such thing as “law” in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a dictator, the law is whatever he says it is. The way to remove an incumbent in Iraq is by shooting the incumbent. That’s how Saddam got his job, and he’s held it for years.
That’s about the size of it. Even if there were other candidates, I’m pretty sure that the man on the street would be too scared (quite understandably) to vote for them, lest he “disappear” under mysterious circumstances. The concept of a secret ballot would be a joke. Let’s not forget, though, that the Iraqi media are state-controlled, so they make damn sure you don’t see the people who aren’t out celebrating/kissing photos of SH etc…
Big Bob Mugabe uses similar tactics, albeit not quite so blatant, in Zimbabwe. I was there last year and he inspires a lot of fear. Hardly anybody, black or white, likes the guy (now there’s an understatement), but you try getting them to admit it. As an example, I was in a 4WD in a national park, probably 10 miles from the nearest vehicle, with a local guy. When the conversation got round to Big Bad Bob, this chap lowered his voice to a whisper, having looked all round as if to make sure that a passing zebra wasn’t about to dob him in to ZANU-PF. Not to mention the police roadblocks that day that made him give the ZANU salute before they’d let us pass.
Now, if you were in his position, with a couple of these same policemen outside the polling station, how do you think you’d vote?
It certainly puts those swinging chads into perspective…
Most dictatorial regimes force their populace to go through the motions of endorsing their rule. It provides a focus for government propaganda–sure, you can say “Saddam’s a great guy” any time, but it gets old after a while. So you break it up once every seven years by saying, “Saddam’s a great guy–so vote ‘yes’ on October 15!” Then, by forcing the people to vote, you get them to “buy into” the regime even though everyone knows it’s bogus. Peolpe don’t like to feel like helpless victims, so they tell themselves, “I’m doing this because I want to, not because that guy over there is pointing a gun at me.” Or at least some of them do.
Saddam’s plebiscite was a little unusual in one respect. Most regimes announce a tiny “No” vote to give a veneer of legitimacy to the process and make it look like they at least counted the votes. Saddam announced an opposition vote of 0.
A vote of confidence is not so bizarre, but according to news reports I have seen, the ballots are numbered and match the voters voter registration card number. That’s quite an incentive to vote to uphold the status quo.