"Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Uday"
[the following is a blog I wrote that my father responded to, as you will see, he is much smarter than I am]
Me:
Two months ago, Iraq held elections that, somehow allowed voting to happen here in the midwest. Last week, it was announced that Jalal Tabani, a Kurd, was appointed president of Iraq.
Appointed? By whom?
Apparently, a vote in the Iraqi Parliament.
go to Google news and try typing in "Iraq president Jalal elect" and then "Iraq president Jalal appoint". One of the things you'll find is that the presidential post is largely ceremonial, much like the royal family in England, or our election process here...they hold no bearings.
That's only half true. One of those 'ceremonies' the new Iraqi president gets to preside over is the naming of the prime minister, who heads up the Parliament, who voted for the president.
That said, I don't know whose pockets, new Prime Minister and Shi'ite Ibrahim al-Jaafari may be in but I do want to know one thing:
Where the fuck did Iraq's Parliament come from? And what happened to the elections that rendered Iraq a new, shining beakon of freedom in the Arab world?
Where are the numbers? And why did we have long-Americanized, exiled Iraqis driving from Boise to Chicago to vote in these elections?
America gets exactly what it wants. Again. Does anybody else feel duped?
Michael:
This whole business of emigres voting here in the US on foreign elections is less Bush-intensively weird than you may think. Although you probably weren't as focused on the presidential elections for Lithuania (a few years ago) and Ukraine (a few weeks ago), people voted in Chicago for both of them (hopefully not the same people voted in both elections, but then this is Chicago). In fact, the Lithuanian President lived in Chicago for years, went to IIT, and used to work for the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Why would a foreign country want US residents -- and even citizens -- to vote in their election? The reasons are always selfish, and not necessarily in a bad way. First, they want to get folks who bolted to consider coming back to allieviate the brain drain that always is part of scenarios where those with sense run like hell until they reach the US. You actually know a guy of Iraqi ancestry who went back. (Hint: you knew his daughter quite well). And whether the skedaddlers are willing to return or not, whether you're talking about Iraq, Lithuania or the Ukraine, they want to solicit foreign investment. The election gets them interested in things "back home."
I think the whole Iraq invasion was insane, and if the Shi'ites take over Iraq, we may someday soon look back on Saddam Hussein as "the good old days." Iran's Shi'ite government has been a real gigglefest for us, and Shi'ites have been scaring the crap out of Europe for years -- so let's help them take over Iraq while we're at it, right? That having been said, the biggest problems we tend to face in the Middle East come from overly insular, wildly xenophobic and paranoid societies. Cutting the Kurds in on the deal (even if only ceremonially) and opening up the election to Iraqi foreign nationals are both good things for even the Blue Staters among us.
As for the Iraqi electorate producing whatever vote they decided to count, if it was limited to males with property, hey that's all we allowed to vote when George Washington got elected. Given the total absence of any democratic traditions or institutional memories, we can safely assume that the election was some sort of strange rigged fiasco. Can't be worse than a Cuban election. The question is where Iraq takes it when we turn over the steering wheel. We shoved democracy down Germany's throat twice -- the first time, it didn't take them long to democratically elect Hitler. They did better after they got the hang of it. Japan got it right quicker and much less painfully. But if Dubya &/or his pals weren't such doctrinaire doofuses, a democracy in a heavily Shi'ite neighbor of Iran would scare him at least as much as Dubya scares the rest of us.
Me:
Good points all but the question remains, who won the election? Why aren't we being told who won and why aren't they holding some wack ceremonial title somewhere? You know as well as I do that we're gonna have to listen to these elephants pound their chest about the election they just pulled off and everyone is going to believe it as long as nobody follows up.
Michael:
Per MSNBC: "Voters chose 275 members of a Transitional National Assembly, whose key tasks will be to choose a government and formulate a new constitution by Aug. 15. The body will select a president and two deputies from its ranks to succeed the interim administration appointed by the U.S.-led occupation authority. They will then choose a prime minister, who will hold the most power, including control of the military.
The assembly is to be dissolved and a new parliament elected according to the new constitution by the end of 2005. Elections are also planned for 18 provincial assemblies and for parliament of the autonomous Kurdish region in the north."
Translation: This is all a transitional do-over, but it was planned that way. The Iraqis (in theory, at least, since anyone who's not cynical about this just isn't paying attention) need to figure out on their own what kind of constitutional blueprint to use. You have to elect somebody to do that, or at least you should. But once they've done so, the transitional bunch have served their purpose and the Iraqis need to elect whatever government they've decided to have. There is undoubtedly a list of the 275 transitional electees somewhere on the web, but reading a list of names like that would make your eyes bleed. Thus most news sources aren't interested in publishing an excrutiatingly long list of names they couldn't possibly spell check.
In today's news, you'll see that Rumsfeld is getting crabby about how long it's taking Iraq to form a government. Of course, guys Rummy's age are pretty much crabby 24/7.
It's always struck me as peculiar that so many new democracies go for weird (to us at least) and complicated Parliamentary systems rather thana US-style system of electing a leader directly rather than electing some guys who then decide on a leader. But in a country like Iraq where minority rights have been just a bit touchy for the Kurds and gosh, even majority rights have been a bit off for the Shi'ites, maybe a Parliamentary system makes sense.
Now if you want to really achieve the appropriate level of cynicism, you'd acknowledge that it doesn't mean squat who won any of this. What does matter is who Jalal, Ibrahim, Aqchbar or whoever it is really listens to (takes orders from?). If Haliburton keeps getting contracts, there's your answer. If it seems that the Minister of Belligerance is de facto chosen by the Ayatollah Du Jour, there's your answer. If you want to know what's going on in the circus, consult the Ringmaster, not the clowns.
---
word
Me:
Two months ago, Iraq held elections that, somehow allowed voting to happen here in the midwest. Last week, it was announced that Jalal Tabani, a Kurd, was appointed president of Iraq.
Appointed? By whom?
Apparently, a vote in the Iraqi Parliament.
go to Google news and try typing in "Iraq president Jalal elect" and then "Iraq president Jalal appoint". One of the things you'll find is that the presidential post is largely ceremonial, much like the royal family in England, or our election process here...they hold no bearings.
That's only half true. One of those 'ceremonies' the new Iraqi president gets to preside over is the naming of the prime minister, who heads up the Parliament, who voted for the president.
That said, I don't know whose pockets, new Prime Minister and Shi'ite Ibrahim al-Jaafari may be in but I do want to know one thing:
Where the fuck did Iraq's Parliament come from? And what happened to the elections that rendered Iraq a new, shining beakon of freedom in the Arab world?
Where are the numbers? And why did we have long-Americanized, exiled Iraqis driving from Boise to Chicago to vote in these elections?
America gets exactly what it wants. Again. Does anybody else feel duped?
Michael:
This whole business of emigres voting here in the US on foreign elections is less Bush-intensively weird than you may think. Although you probably weren't as focused on the presidential elections for Lithuania (a few years ago) and Ukraine (a few weeks ago), people voted in Chicago for both of them (hopefully not the same people voted in both elections, but then this is Chicago). In fact, the Lithuanian President lived in Chicago for years, went to IIT, and used to work for the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Why would a foreign country want US residents -- and even citizens -- to vote in their election? The reasons are always selfish, and not necessarily in a bad way. First, they want to get folks who bolted to consider coming back to allieviate the brain drain that always is part of scenarios where those with sense run like hell until they reach the US. You actually know a guy of Iraqi ancestry who went back. (Hint: you knew his daughter quite well). And whether the skedaddlers are willing to return or not, whether you're talking about Iraq, Lithuania or the Ukraine, they want to solicit foreign investment. The election gets them interested in things "back home."
I think the whole Iraq invasion was insane, and if the Shi'ites take over Iraq, we may someday soon look back on Saddam Hussein as "the good old days." Iran's Shi'ite government has been a real gigglefest for us, and Shi'ites have been scaring the crap out of Europe for years -- so let's help them take over Iraq while we're at it, right? That having been said, the biggest problems we tend to face in the Middle East come from overly insular, wildly xenophobic and paranoid societies. Cutting the Kurds in on the deal (even if only ceremonially) and opening up the election to Iraqi foreign nationals are both good things for even the Blue Staters among us.
As for the Iraqi electorate producing whatever vote they decided to count, if it was limited to males with property, hey that's all we allowed to vote when George Washington got elected. Given the total absence of any democratic traditions or institutional memories, we can safely assume that the election was some sort of strange rigged fiasco. Can't be worse than a Cuban election. The question is where Iraq takes it when we turn over the steering wheel. We shoved democracy down Germany's throat twice -- the first time, it didn't take them long to democratically elect Hitler. They did better after they got the hang of it. Japan got it right quicker and much less painfully. But if Dubya &/or his pals weren't such doctrinaire doofuses, a democracy in a heavily Shi'ite neighbor of Iran would scare him at least as much as Dubya scares the rest of us.
Me:
Good points all but the question remains, who won the election? Why aren't we being told who won and why aren't they holding some wack ceremonial title somewhere? You know as well as I do that we're gonna have to listen to these elephants pound their chest about the election they just pulled off and everyone is going to believe it as long as nobody follows up.
Michael:
Per MSNBC: "Voters chose 275 members of a Transitional National Assembly, whose key tasks will be to choose a government and formulate a new constitution by Aug. 15. The body will select a president and two deputies from its ranks to succeed the interim administration appointed by the U.S.-led occupation authority. They will then choose a prime minister, who will hold the most power, including control of the military.
The assembly is to be dissolved and a new parliament elected according to the new constitution by the end of 2005. Elections are also planned for 18 provincial assemblies and for parliament of the autonomous Kurdish region in the north."
Translation: This is all a transitional do-over, but it was planned that way. The Iraqis (in theory, at least, since anyone who's not cynical about this just isn't paying attention) need to figure out on their own what kind of constitutional blueprint to use. You have to elect somebody to do that, or at least you should. But once they've done so, the transitional bunch have served their purpose and the Iraqis need to elect whatever government they've decided to have. There is undoubtedly a list of the 275 transitional electees somewhere on the web, but reading a list of names like that would make your eyes bleed. Thus most news sources aren't interested in publishing an excrutiatingly long list of names they couldn't possibly spell check.
In today's news, you'll see that Rumsfeld is getting crabby about how long it's taking Iraq to form a government. Of course, guys Rummy's age are pretty much crabby 24/7.
It's always struck me as peculiar that so many new democracies go for weird (to us at least) and complicated Parliamentary systems rather thana US-style system of electing a leader directly rather than electing some guys who then decide on a leader. But in a country like Iraq where minority rights have been just a bit touchy for the Kurds and gosh, even majority rights have been a bit off for the Shi'ites, maybe a Parliamentary system makes sense.
Now if you want to really achieve the appropriate level of cynicism, you'd acknowledge that it doesn't mean squat who won any of this. What does matter is who Jalal, Ibrahim, Aqchbar or whoever it is really listens to (takes orders from?). If Haliburton keeps getting contracts, there's your answer. If it seems that the Minister of Belligerance is de facto chosen by the Ayatollah Du Jour, there's your answer. If you want to know what's going on in the circus, consult the Ringmaster, not the clowns.
---
word
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home