| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US, UN, urge Iraq to reverse changes to voting procedure |
| 2005-10-05 |
| U.S. and U.N. officials urged the Shiite-led government Tuesday to reverse last-minute changes to voting rules for a referendum on Iraq's new constitution and head off a threatened Sunni boycott. The crisis emerged less than two weeks before the Oct. 15 vote and just a day after the U.N. began distributing 5 million copies of the constitution to voters. The United Nations sharply criticized the changes — which make it nearly impossible for the Sunni minority to defeat the charter at the polls — and warned that they violate international standards. Unlike Iraqi elections before 2003. Or unlike those of Cuba, Zim-Bob-we, the PRC, Saudi Arabia,... Sunni Arab leaders are opposed to the draft constitution that Washington hopes will unite Iraq's disparate factions and erode support for the country's bloody insurgency, paving the way to eventually begin withdrawing foreign troops. But a boycott by the minority would deeply undermine the credibility of the vote and wreck efforts to bring Sunnis into the political process. Just as North Carolina's and Rhode Island's rejection of the Constitution tore the United States of America apart. Iraq's Shiite-dominated parliament passed the new rules on Sunday, effectively closing the loophole that would have given the minority a chance of vetoing the constitution by getting a two-thirds "no" vote in three provinces even if it wins majority approval nationwide. Sunni Arabs have a sufficient majority in four of Iraq's 18 provinces. The new interpretation of the rules declares that two-thirds of registered voters must vote "no" — not two-thirds of those who actually vote. The interpretation raises the bar to a level almost impossible to meet. In a province of 1 million registered voters, for example, 660,000 would have to vote "no" — even if that many didn't even come to the polls. The United Nations cried foul. "Ultimately, this will be a sovereign decision by the Iraqis, spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in New York. "That being said, it is our duty in our role in Iraq to point out when the process does not meet international standards." U.N. officials were meeting with members of parliament to reverse the change, Dujarric and Iraqi officials said. "The decision will be amended depending on what we reach in agreements with the United Nations, Abbas al-Bayati, a Shiite Turkomen lawmaker on the constitutional commission, told The Associated Press. "The U.N. is seeking one interpretation for the word 'voters,"' he said. The Americans were talking separately with the Shiite-led government, said an Iraqi lawmaker, Mahmoud Othman, and an official close to the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks. In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined comment on the U.S. role except to say that the new rules are a topic of discussion among Iraqi authorities. A senior State Department official said privately that U.S. diplomats have made clear concerns about the rule change in those discussions. A new version of the rules could be decided as early as Wednesday, and it would be put to parliament for a new vote, Othman said. The dispute over the rule changes threatens to deepen disillusionment with the political process among Sunnis, who make up the backbone of the insurgency. "The aim of this move is to pass the constitution and impose it on everybody regardless of their opinions," said Saleh al-Mutlaq, the main Sunni figure on the commission that drafted the constitution. He, like other Sunnis say the constitution's strong federalist bent will tear Iraq apart into Shiite and Kurdish mini-states in the north and south, leaving the minority weak in a central region without oil resources. Boo-hoo. Sunni Arabs boycotted January parliamentary elections, the reason for their minimal representation there and the fact that they intended to vote in the referendum — even if against the charter — granted it legitimacy. But after the passage of the new rules, Sunnis accused the Shiites of using their dominance to stack the deck against the minority. "This is fraud aimed at distorting the truth, it aims to foil any effort to bring down the constitution," said Ayad al-Samarraie, a senior official in the Iraqi Islamic Party, one of the main Sunni Arab groups. The controversy centered on the definition of the word "voter." Must have had help from Democrats in Washington and Florida. Election rules in the interim constitution read, "The general referendum will be successful and the draft constitution ratified if a majority of the voters in Iraq approve and if two-thirds of the voters in three or more provinces do not reject it." The committee decided that while the first reference to "voters" in the clause refers to those who cast votes, the second refers to all those registered to vote. "There should be one interpretation for the word 'voter,' or else we will appeal over the referendum and its results," al-Samarraie said. Actually, that sounds too much like the kind of stuff our leftist judges pull. I have no sympathy for the Sunnis, but a Constitution should not need tortured interpretation of common words. |
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #14 It is a problem, I admit, Mrs. D, but we set up the same system in Afghanistan, and look how enthusiastic both peoples were in their last round(s) of elections. And it looks like the number of parties is beginning to rationalize, just a bit. And first past the post would just put the Shiites straight into power at this point. The Germans, on the other hand, probably need another generation of working things through (Moses led the Israelites through the wilderness for 40 years, until all those who'd lived in Egypt even as children were dead, before God deemed them ready for the freedom of self-rule in the Promised Land. And then they had to conquer it before it was theirs anyway)... and let's hope they make it that far before events and birthrates overtake them. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-05 20:04 |
| #13 Danielle, It was the Shiites who changed the voting rules in the first place to make it almost impossible for the Sunnis to torpedo the constitutional vote. I would have let it be known that if the constitution was torpedoed by Sunnis, it would have to be rewritten, with less outside input, and less favorable to Sunni interests, or possibly excluding the Sunni provinces in a new Shiite-Kurdish nation. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-10-05 15:17 |
| #12 TW, by the time they live through all the problems of pr, they're fed up with democracy and ready for a man on a white horse to get something done. That's why the Germans turned to Hitler. That's why they're in the jam they're in today. First past the post with a real commitment to individual rights is the ONLY way to go. It forces opposing parties to move to the middle. with pr there is no incentive for real accomodation, only continual political games that give you, in the case of Italy, a government a year. With PR, I'd bet the Iraqis will decide they'd be better off splittting the country up with the Sunnis joining Syria, the Shia joining Iran and the Kurds going after eastern Turkey. That'll be lovely. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-10-05 15:16 |
| #11 I'm not sure what to think except if Washington and the UN agree on this rule change, it probably isn't a good thing. Why should a minority be allowed to change the charter? |
| Posted by: Danielle 2005-10-05 15:03 |
| #10 The thing about new democracies in old countries is that there are so many groups that were grossly discriminated against under the old regimes. Proportional representation is the only way to get things started -- if we want the many minorities to feel they have a stake in the new set-up. We can hope that once the people mature politically (and clearly it takes more than the half century Germany has experienced ... France is too busy enjoying its own manic-depressive cycle ever to move beyond it, I think), they will be able to see the problems inherent in a proportionally representative system. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-10-05 14:37 |
| #9 Jimmy? May God help us. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-10-05 12:32 |
| #8 Good that they changed them back. I'm not sure what "international standards" are for elections (do they require Jimmy to be watching?), but the rules didn't pass the smell test, with different definitions for "voter" for yea and for nay. |
| Posted by: James 2005-10-05 11:41 |
| #7 They changed them back: Iraq's parliament has reversed its decision to change the rules governing a referendum next week on the country's new constitution. The altered rules would have made it much harder for Sunni opponents of the draft constitution to reject it. Parliament has now decided to revert to the original rules - as both the United Nations and Washington said it should. UN legal advisors said that a referendum held under the new rules would not meet international standards. After a brief debate, MPs voted 119 to 28 to restore the original voting rules for the referendum. Only about half of the 275-member body attended the vote, although a quorum was achieved. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-10-05 08:39 |
| #6 US, UN, urge Iraq to reverse changes to voting procedure Why not just use the Gore Plan[tm] - wait till the counting starts and then change the rules. |
| Posted by: Javirt Thrusing6823 2005-10-05 08:28 |
| #5 CA, it's called proportional representation and it does suck. Why do we keep forcing a clearly unworkable system on others that we do not adopt ourselves? Because the government is still under the control of idiots like Lani Guenier. It's going to take a long time for all these idiots to die because they won't be fired. |
| Posted by: Speanter Thraque8792 2005-10-05 07:40 |
| #4 The United Nations sharply criticized the changes — which make it nearly impossible for the Sunni minority to defeat the charter at the polls — and warned that they violate international standards. Google "Democracy" Koffi. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2005-10-05 04:41 |
| #3 Re: Straight-up... I was referring to the article - where they changed the rules on the constitution ratification vote. What are you talking about? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-05 02:40 |
| #2 The problem traces back to the form of democracy the UN set up in Iraq. It's the same shit that Germany is going through right now with coalition building. In essence, there is no "straight up". It's too f!*ked up. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-05 02:18 |
| #1 Oddly enough, I have to agree with the article's thrust. Do it straight-up. If they torpedo it, then it will be crystal clear that the Sunnis are too stupid to live. I've always hated these absurd attempts to hold together a bogus entity - no different than Yugoshitvia. Cut the Kurds loose from this faux monstrosity, at least. Only a few months ago, I'd have said seal the southern border of Kurdistan and let the Arabs kill each other off. Now, with the south so terminally fucked up, as it obviously is, I'm not sure. Any ideas out there - that don't involve shackling the Kurds to this cluster fuck? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-05 01:02 |