Optimism and Iraq
President Bush addressed the American Legion on February 24th, 2006. At one point he referred to past elections in Iraq:
"I'm optimistic, because the Iraqi people have spoken, and the Iraqi people made their intentions clear. In December, more than 11 million Iraqis sent a clear message to the world and to the terrorists, they want their freedom. They want their country to be a democracy…"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060224.html
First of all, If voting is to be a legitimate process of communication of desire, then there must be legitimate choices to select amongst. This is exactly why the elections in Haiti conducted by Duvalier were never taken seriously by the rest of the world. The people voting had no choice of candidates, the only choice was whether or not to vote. The situation in Iraq is similar: how can people going to the ballot box select anything other than democracy?? They didn't choose a form of government (Please check one: Theocracy, Freedom and Democracy, Theocracy, Democracy without Freedom, Republic, Theocracy), they chose to participate in the one imposed upon them…
Secondly, let's consider the Democratic process in Iraq. First and foremost, it isn't a democracy at all: the governmental process to which it aspires is a republic… (I might point out that the same holds true in the US. The form of government guaranteed by the US Constitution is a Republic, and that's exactly what it aspires to be. Government by elected representatives is a republic). Further, for the election process to be worth anything at all, the voters must be an informed group. Having noted that, the literacy rate in Iraq isn't even 41%. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
How are a mass of people supposed to compose an informed electorate when the vast majority can't even read and write?? Moreover, Iraq is a country of more than 26 million people. If 11 million of them turn up to paint their fingers purple on election day, you've got a 42% turnout. While that's about par for the course regarding turnout in any modern election process, it isn't a majority and it certainly isn't any kind of clear mandate about freedom and democracy or anything else.
As an aside, given the above statistics about the Iraqi population more people voted than are literate. That is, you definitely have illiterate people voting… These people aren't clear about what they voted for; they had to take someone else's word for it. I don't know how we can be clear about their intent if they're not even clear about they voted.
Finally, let's remember that 50% of any population is of below average intelligence.
I don't see any reason to share the President's optimistic appraisal of the situation given these facts...
"I'm optimistic, because the Iraqi people have spoken, and the Iraqi people made their intentions clear. In December, more than 11 million Iraqis sent a clear message to the world and to the terrorists, they want their freedom. They want their country to be a democracy…"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060224.html
First of all, If voting is to be a legitimate process of communication of desire, then there must be legitimate choices to select amongst. This is exactly why the elections in Haiti conducted by Duvalier were never taken seriously by the rest of the world. The people voting had no choice of candidates, the only choice was whether or not to vote. The situation in Iraq is similar: how can people going to the ballot box select anything other than democracy?? They didn't choose a form of government (Please check one: Theocracy, Freedom and Democracy, Theocracy, Democracy without Freedom, Republic, Theocracy), they chose to participate in the one imposed upon them…
Secondly, let's consider the Democratic process in Iraq. First and foremost, it isn't a democracy at all: the governmental process to which it aspires is a republic… (I might point out that the same holds true in the US. The form of government guaranteed by the US Constitution is a Republic, and that's exactly what it aspires to be. Government by elected representatives is a republic). Further, for the election process to be worth anything at all, the voters must be an informed group. Having noted that, the literacy rate in Iraq isn't even 41%. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
How are a mass of people supposed to compose an informed electorate when the vast majority can't even read and write?? Moreover, Iraq is a country of more than 26 million people. If 11 million of them turn up to paint their fingers purple on election day, you've got a 42% turnout. While that's about par for the course regarding turnout in any modern election process, it isn't a majority and it certainly isn't any kind of clear mandate about freedom and democracy or anything else.
As an aside, given the above statistics about the Iraqi population more people voted than are literate. That is, you definitely have illiterate people voting… These people aren't clear about what they voted for; they had to take someone else's word for it. I don't know how we can be clear about their intent if they're not even clear about they voted.
Finally, let's remember that 50% of any population is of below average intelligence.
I don't see any reason to share the President's optimistic appraisal of the situation given these facts...
posted by Minotaur at 8:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home