While everything is going from bad to worse in Iraq the US administration and the Iraqi interm government have consistantly maintained that elections are still on track for January. Although almost everyone thinks it is a good idea to have elections in Iraq, there has been debate over the timing. Is January too soon? Isn't the country still too unstable?
Throughout, the US administration has maintained their course for January. Today, however, Donald Rumsfeld has revealed that these general elections may not be as "general" as we have been led to believe.
"Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing."Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," he said.
Is this democracy? Only the parts of the country which they have been able to control get a say in their future? In my opinion, an election in which a large segment of a country is not able to vote is not a fair democratic election and it should not be held. The US needs to work on getting these violent unstable regions on their side. Actions like this will simply alienate them more. If you were an Iraqi living in one of these regions would you not feel cheated that after all the promises of a fair democracy, you are denied your right to determine your country's future? I would be angry.
Isn't it also a funny coincidence that not allowing these anti-US regions to vote will reduce the risk of the Iraqi people electing an administration that is hostile to the United States.
I guess the Bush administration has just come to enjoy false election results and is trying to spread this shining example of US democray to the rest of the world.
How do you propose that the U.S. work to get, "these violent unstable regions on their side"? The only thing the U.S. can do is fight them, and fighting them hasn't helped so far, as you point out.
That's a good point. I don't have an answer to this.
I would suggest, however, that elections in January are premature if they do not have the good enough security to hold them for all areas of the country.
If elections are held without the votes of these sections being counted, I imagine it would only create problems for whatever government is elected.
I understand that point, and I think it's a good one, but I think they should still have elections in January. Reason being is that it will be better for Iraq to have a president in power who has the support of most Iraqi's, not one who was given power by a foreign nation. That in itself may help stabalize the country.
I disagree with them not having elections in all areas. It seems suspicious to me, but I suppose it really is possible that the likelyhood of violence is simply too great to arrange it in some areas.
Man, I feel lucky to live in Canada when I read about other countries sometimes.