| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Long but fairly good read on Sistani and Iraqi elections |
| 2004-01-23 |
| The most powerful Shiite Muslim cleric in Iraq is hoping the Bush administration will allow the country to hold direct elections because otherwise he may be forced to support a revolt that could tear the nation apart, a spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani said Thursday. Sistani met with his supporters recently in which he discussed the ongoing showdown between his demand for elections and the U.S. refusal to grant them, said Noor Aldin Alwaadh, a spokesman for Sistani’s Baghdad office. At the end of the talk, which lasted for hours, Sistani "was clear about it - he wants direct elections," Alwaadh said. "We are not the Taliban and we are not al-Qaida," Alwaadh said. "But if you want to hear me say it, fine. We will fight for our rights. We will fight 
we will not sacrifice our independence, and we do not want occupying forces in our country." Sistani’s views, and those of many ordinary Shiites, suggest that the United States may have little room for maneuver as it tries to engineer an orderly transition to Iraqi self-rule by the end of June. Earlier this week, Iraq’s Shiite leadership sent tens of thousands of followers to the streets, calling for direct elections in a stark demonstration of their power. The U.S. administration said there’s not enough to time to organize elections by the end of June. Sistani hasn’t specified a timetable for elections. But even if Sistani agreed to elections later this year or even in 2005, President Bush’s political advisers are eager to begin a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq well before Election Day in November. Alwaadh said Sistani doesn’t believe U.S. contentions that elections are impossible because of the lack of a census and suggested that Iraqis could use rosters from past United Nations-sponsored Oil-for-Food ration cards and supplement those names with foreign-issued identification cards for those returning from exile. There have been conflicting reports on whether Sistani might accept a U.N. finding that elections were technically impossible. When asked about a possible U.N. mission to Iraq now being considered, Alwaadh said Sistani hopes the United Nations would help oversee the elections. L. Paul Bremer III, the top American envoy to Iraq, plans to hand over power to an Iraqi legislative body selected by a series of caucuses across the nation. The groups would be selected in large part by local politicians and the U.S.-appointed interim Iraqi Governing Council. Many Iraqis complain that because those local politicians and council members were appointed by Americans, they will be beholden to the Bush administration. Some officials in Vice President Cheney’s office and in the Pentagon still want postwar Iraq to make peace with Israel, allow the United States to base troops there and serve as a secular, democratic model for the Middle East. Interviews this week in Baghdad and in Sistani’s home base of Najaf suggest that the senior cleric is restraining less moderate Shiite religious leaders, trying to prevent violence and hoping that the Bush administration agrees to allow elections before it’s too late. Sistani has said that he prefers civil disobedience, but many on the street say they have little patience for such measures. "If there are no elections, there will first be a strike with a lot of violence in the streets," said Luai al Mansori, a member of the Hawza in Najaf, a group of Shiite scholars who issue fatwahs, or edicts, that are followed as the highest law by Iraqi Shiites. Shiites make up about 60 percent of the nation’s 26 million people. "The revolt will begin in Najaf because Sistani has more power here." Amir Abdul Karim, a perfume salesman in Najaf, agreed. "We will fight for the freedom and the direct elections 
the will of the people is more powerful than the Americans." Any compromise short of elections, such as making the caucus selection process more open to the public, wouldn’t be enough to placate men such as Mansori and Karim, said Alwaadh, the Sistani spokesman. "We wish that the Americans will leave by themselves and not by coffins, so we are hoping for direct elections," Alwaadh said. Sistani is mindful of Iraqi blood that was shed in the eight-year war with Iran, the invasion of Kuwait and two ensuing wars with the United States, Alwaadh said, and doesn’t want more fighting. All he’s asking for, Alwaadh said, is the democracy promised when the U.S.-led coalition toppled former dictator Saddam Hussein, who tortured and killed thousands of Shiites in Iraq. Alwaadh refused to comment specifically on whether Sistani would issue a call for violence if elections failed to materialize. Some Iraqis believe Shiite leaders want elections so they can use their majority vote to create a theocracy. The clerics have been "telling the Americans what they want to hear, but as soon as the Americans turn their face, they will bring Islamic rule," said Sadoun al Dulame, the executive director of the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, an independent think tank and polling agency. "They are just using the democratic language as a tool. All of the religious groups are pushing for a theocracy." Sistani has avoided appearing before demonstrators and has refused to meet with U.S. officials. Conflicting reports about his views frequently appear. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #15 Sorry LH but you are being naive to think that Iraqis won't vote along ethnic lines. The Shias are an absolute majority and will vote as a block. The only hope I see for Iraq is a strong federal constitution similar to Switzerlands. Once there are direct elections it will be very hard to impose a constitution, and the Shias quite naturally will want a unitary state with them in charge. The Sunnis and Kurds will resist this. If the security forces don't split along ethnic lines then maybe it can work, but I personally doubt it. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-1-23 6:35:00 PM |
| #14 sistani has said he doesnt like the iranian system - he sees that its brought the clergy into disrepute. muslim family law - Israel has religious family law, and for Israeli Muslims thats Sharia. May not be fun for an Israeli muslim woman seeking a divorce or inheritance (though they use a "moderate" strain of Sharia) but it doesnt stop the county from being a vibrant democracy. We MUST get a democracy going in Iraq. It would be nice if they had equal rights for both sexes, but as long as they are at all close its ok. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-1-23 4:14:42 PM |
| #13 #5 With due respect to your opinion LH, my concern is that 100% of the Iraqi people are due basic human rights under the law. I don't see that happening with Sistani leading the production of the new Iraqi constitution. Already he has introduced, via the interim governing council, Sharia law to permanently replace Iraq's family law. A giant step backward. IMHO, if someone likes democracy as practiced in Iran, they're going to love Sistani's democracy. |
| Posted by: Gasse Katze 2004-1-23 1:37:46 PM |
| #12 "We will fight for the freedom and the direct elections … the will of the people is more powerful than the Americans." And the will of the people WAS NOT more powerful than the Baathists? Let's see.... Baathists trounce population.... Americans trounce Baathists.... Q.E.D - Looks like elections will happen on our timeline. |
| Posted by: Sean 2004-1-23 11:28:22 AM |
| #11 Jeb Babbin at National Review Online also has a four pager on the situation including a description of the local political system -All Politics is Local(Even in Baghdad.) |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-23 11:04:20 AM |
| #10 Explain nicely that we'll allow direct elections for places IN the new government, but that for the "constitutional caucus" (as it were), we want a more even-handed approach. Everybody has a voice. And if you don't agree, we'll shoot you. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-1-23 10:42:57 AM |
| #9 Poor Sistani - he's about to realize all politics are local and that's bigger than he can control. He's a big man now, while he can get the press to glorify his anti-American stance, but if we set this up right, he'll soon have about as much political power as the Pope or Pat Robertson. |
| Posted by: B 2004-1-23 10:19:59 AM |
| #8 This is another "scholar" who substitutes "intense, lifetime study of Islam" for "Logic 101". |
| Posted by: ScottAK 2004-1-23 9:57:14 AM |
| #7 I expect to see the Kurds, Sunni, and Shia in civil war, but not until we're out of there. Perhaps our smashing Iran's thugocracy and doing some housekeeping in Syria between 2004 and 2008 will significantly delay the inevitable. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-1-23 9:20:56 AM |
| #6 On the other hand, maybe Sistani is still frightened of the Sunni or irritated at the coalition efforts at affirmative action for Sunni thugs who want to join the new Iraqi armed forces. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-1-23 9:11:26 AM |
| #5 "Saddam's yoke off his neck and these debt relief agreements so he can throw his weight around." huh? we threw Saddam out so that Iraq could have democratic (small d) politics. That means popular guys, including, in a society like Iraq, Sistani, are going to throw their weight around. The admin, to their credit, understand this and are negotiating, and using the UN. Why would direct elections mean a Shia dictatorship - the Shia are only 60% of the population, and are not united. a coalition would still be necessary. And any caucus system the US would propose will still result in a Shia majority. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-1-23 8:48:11 AM |
| #4 didn't this guy "fight for his rights" from iran--he should shut his islamohole or we'll fill it with pork |
| Posted by: SON OF TOLUI 2004-1-23 1:54:34 AM |
| #3 Assuming this guy is really speaking for sistani... someone needs to make him aware that we don't respond well to threats. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-1-23 1:33:54 AM |
| #2 This sounds like the standard Arab Dire Threats (TM) with the normal allocation of seething. The unavoidable fact is that direct elections will result in a shiite dictatorship irrespective of whether its a theocracy or not. IMVHO a federal constitution has to be in place before direct elections, otherwise there will be civil war. There may wll be a civil war with one, but its the best chance I can see. I'm kind of alarmed the Iraqi administration is giving in to these threats. Maybe they are relying on the fact that the UN can't do anything quickly and can say well we tried. BTW, no one seems to be anticipating what consequences a shia run state will bring. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-1-23 12:57:35 AM |
| #1 Maybe GW should send James Baker to Baghdad to 'splain to Sistani that the US didn't get Saddam's yoke off his neck and these debt relief agreements so he can throw his weight around. It's a power grab that is not in the best interest of all the Iraqi people. |
| Posted by: Gasse Katze 2004-1-23 12:45:10 AM |