You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Chalabi Backs Popular Call for Elections
2004-01-24
Pressure on Washington to hold direct elections in Iraq mounted yesterday as a high profile member of the US-appointed Governing Council backed the popular call for polls before a July handover of power. The United States plans to hand sovereignty back to Iraqis by July 1, but says there is not enough time to arrange elections first. It wants regional caucuses to appoint a transitional government, paving the way for polls in 2005. There have been huge popular protests across Iraq, spearheaded by the majority Shiite community, rejecting the plan and demanding that Iraqis themselves be allowed to choose who governs them. Yesterday, Ahmad Chalabi, a member of Iraq’s Governing Council generally seen as close to Washington, said it would be possible to hold elections before the mid-year deadline, dealing another blow to the US political plan for Iraq. “Direct elections are possible,” Chalabi told a think tank conference in Washington. “Seek to make them possible and they will be possible.” Iraq’s Shiites, who represent 60 percent of the population, have mounted big demonstrations across Iraq in the past week, peacefully supporting their top leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani who says direct elections are essential.
I don't think it'll be any skin off our collective fore if there are elections rather than caucuses. I'd have gone for elections off the bat, myself.
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#7  Sounds good Aris except an Imman would be an Imman for all o that.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-1-24 4:57:38 PM  

#6  "Psst, Aris: "separation of church and state" doesn't mean not allowing clerics to run for office"

I know. That's why I said that you should do *both* of these, not just one or the other. The second is mainly to ensure that the former doesn't end up violated in practice.

"I'd say it comes close to meaning the opposite: not caring at all who runs for office."

Not so. It means that state shouldn't care who runs for church positions, and church shouldn't interfere in who runs for state positions, but it doesn't mean that additional means shouldn't be taken in order to separate the two institutions.

You can disallow people that hold a certain profession from running for office, as they long as they keep on practicing that profession -- e.g. in Greece MPs aren't allowed to be at the same time a number of other profession which are considered to be potentially conflicting, if they have not resigned prior to the elections. This (again in Greece) includes civil servants, people serving in the armed forces, chairmen of corporations and I think a number of other people.

If clerics want to run for office, then they should first resign from being clerics.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-1-24 4:28:37 PM  

#5  I think Bush is playing a game here. Encouraging the UN to participate and involve itself in Iraq makes it appear he is being multilateral, not a bad thing in an election year. At the same time, he offers to Sistani the opportunity to deal with the same UN bastards that supported Saddam and allowed his death squads and oil-for-palaces corruption to proceed without end. Sistani and Co. are going to have to make a quick decision, an I'll bet GW already knows what it will be.
Posted by: john   2004-1-24 4:26:24 PM  

#4  Call me defeatest, but I don't see any way that we can establish democracy and prevent the 60% Shiite population from imposing their stubborn will. An intact Iraq is a tinderbox for civil war and a divided Iraq is a large gift to Iran. The best we can do is to stall until there is regime change in Iran. A democratic Iran and a divided Iraq seem to be the only acceptable stable solution.
Posted by: Tom   2004-1-24 1:35:20 PM  

#3  Psst, Aris: "separation of church and state" doesn't mean not allowing clerics to run for office. I'd say it comes close to meaning the opposite: not caring at all who runs for office.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-1-24 10:13:14 AM  

#2  60 percent of the Iraqis are Shiites, so calling Chalabi one doesn't mean much, other than the fact that you are biased, Tolui.

Insist on separation of church and state, disallow clerics running for office -- and then let the direct elections take place.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-1-24 9:14:55 AM  

#1  chalabi's a shite--nuf said
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI   2004-1-24 12:06:39 AM  

00:00