The (almost) final Iraq election results: what do they mean?
I have been very busy adjusting my tin foil hat, so I will not attempt to fully answer this question in this post, but I will at least start on some answers.
According to Reuters and the AP, the the major Shiite coalition--the United Iraqi Alliance--recieved approximately 48% of the vote. The Kurdish alliance recieved approximately 26%, and the party of interim prime minister Allawi recieved approximately 14%. According to an interactive section on the New York Times website, this translates into 140 out of 275 seats on the the National Assembly for the United Iraqi Alliance, 75 seats for the Kurdish Alliance, and 40 seats for Allawi's party.
The most obvious meaning of these results is that the United Iraqi Alliance does not have a majority and cannot form a ruling government on its own. In other words, the Shiite coalition will have to form a government through alliances with other parties. As explained in the Reuters article, "The national vote was for a 275-member National Assembly that must agree on a president and two vice-presidents by a two-thirds majority. Those three officials will then agree on a prime minister and cabinet, and their choices must be approved by a majority in the assembly."
It is almost tin foil hat time...I will explain this in more detail in a subsequent post, but for now I will give a synopsis. Allawi's party is a secular (as opposed to religious) party and has the backing of the Bush administration. While there are secular elements in the United Iraqi Alliance, it is nonetheless the group approved by the leading Shiite religious clerics, including the highest ranking, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Had the United Iraqi Alliance gained 2/3 of the vote, there was some question as to whether Iraq's government would trend toward some form of theocracy. This is something the Bush administration wants to avoid, particularly since such result could portend closer ties to Iran, which is a Shiite theocracy very much opposed to the U.S. On strictly political and strategic grounds, I share the Bush administration's concern. Although the administration, primarily through Cheney and Rumskull, has said that such a government in Iraq is unlikely, and although Sistani and others have said there would be no such theocracy, there are nonetheless some signs to the contrary. At this point, the only way to make sure that does not happen is to make sure that the United Iraqi Alliance does not have a 2/3 majority.
We are getting closer to tin foil hat time...8.5 millions votes were cast. As noted in Some post-Iraq election analysis, on February 6, the United Iraqi Alliance had 67% (of 3.3 million votes counted at that time). However, none of the votes from the Northern provinces had been counted. Two days later, 4.6 million votes had been counted--including from the North--and the United Iraqi Alliance had just over 50% of the vote and the Kurdish Alliance had 25%. As noted, the final results showed the United Iraqi Alliance with 48% and the Kurdish Alliance with 26%. In other words, the voting in the Northern provinces, 90% of which (according to the New York Times) went to the Kurdish Alliance, kept the United Iraqi Alliance from having a majority.
Now, on the one hand there is nothing significant here, because it seems clear that the United Iraqi Alliance was not going to achieve the 2/3 majority needed to completely control the future government. On the other hand, the fact that the United Iraqi Alliance did not gain a majority of the vote seems to me to have a psychological effect. That party cannot claim to have a national mandate, and it gives the Kurds a great deal of confidence and hope.
And now we come to tin foil hat time...On February 9 I wrote a post entitled Iraq election and delays, which described how the final count was being delayed. After publishing that post, I found several other articles on the subject. One was by James Glanz of the New York Times. Glanz wrote that the Iraqi election commission had on display materials that "included boxes that appeared to have been hastily stuffed with forged ballots, as well as heaps of ballots in sacks and cartons that revealed an apparent attempt to falsify votes on a large scale," and that "all the materials on display on Wednesday came from Nineveh Province, in the north, where Kurds, Arabs, Christians, Turkmen and other groups are in a bitter struggle for power." So, even though no one would say where the disputed ballot boxes came from, all the tainted materials on display came from a Northern province.
Where are Scully and Mulder?
One last thing--the "final" results will not become official until after Wednesday because parties can still "lodge complaints or dispute the results announced" until then (according to the AP).
According to Reuters and the AP, the the major Shiite coalition--the United Iraqi Alliance--recieved approximately 48% of the vote. The Kurdish alliance recieved approximately 26%, and the party of interim prime minister Allawi recieved approximately 14%. According to an interactive section on the New York Times website, this translates into 140 out of 275 seats on the the National Assembly for the United Iraqi Alliance, 75 seats for the Kurdish Alliance, and 40 seats for Allawi's party.
The most obvious meaning of these results is that the United Iraqi Alliance does not have a majority and cannot form a ruling government on its own. In other words, the Shiite coalition will have to form a government through alliances with other parties. As explained in the Reuters article, "The national vote was for a 275-member National Assembly that must agree on a president and two vice-presidents by a two-thirds majority. Those three officials will then agree on a prime minister and cabinet, and their choices must be approved by a majority in the assembly."
It is almost tin foil hat time...I will explain this in more detail in a subsequent post, but for now I will give a synopsis. Allawi's party is a secular (as opposed to religious) party and has the backing of the Bush administration. While there are secular elements in the United Iraqi Alliance, it is nonetheless the group approved by the leading Shiite religious clerics, including the highest ranking, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Had the United Iraqi Alliance gained 2/3 of the vote, there was some question as to whether Iraq's government would trend toward some form of theocracy. This is something the Bush administration wants to avoid, particularly since such result could portend closer ties to Iran, which is a Shiite theocracy very much opposed to the U.S. On strictly political and strategic grounds, I share the Bush administration's concern. Although the administration, primarily through Cheney and Rumskull, has said that such a government in Iraq is unlikely, and although Sistani and others have said there would be no such theocracy, there are nonetheless some signs to the contrary. At this point, the only way to make sure that does not happen is to make sure that the United Iraqi Alliance does not have a 2/3 majority.
We are getting closer to tin foil hat time...8.5 millions votes were cast. As noted in Some post-Iraq election analysis, on February 6, the United Iraqi Alliance had 67% (of 3.3 million votes counted at that time). However, none of the votes from the Northern provinces had been counted. Two days later, 4.6 million votes had been counted--including from the North--and the United Iraqi Alliance had just over 50% of the vote and the Kurdish Alliance had 25%. As noted, the final results showed the United Iraqi Alliance with 48% and the Kurdish Alliance with 26%. In other words, the voting in the Northern provinces, 90% of which (according to the New York Times) went to the Kurdish Alliance, kept the United Iraqi Alliance from having a majority.
Now, on the one hand there is nothing significant here, because it seems clear that the United Iraqi Alliance was not going to achieve the 2/3 majority needed to completely control the future government. On the other hand, the fact that the United Iraqi Alliance did not gain a majority of the vote seems to me to have a psychological effect. That party cannot claim to have a national mandate, and it gives the Kurds a great deal of confidence and hope.
And now we come to tin foil hat time...On February 9 I wrote a post entitled Iraq election and delays, which described how the final count was being delayed. After publishing that post, I found several other articles on the subject. One was by James Glanz of the New York Times. Glanz wrote that the Iraqi election commission had on display materials that "included boxes that appeared to have been hastily stuffed with forged ballots, as well as heaps of ballots in sacks and cartons that revealed an apparent attempt to falsify votes on a large scale," and that "all the materials on display on Wednesday came from Nineveh Province, in the north, where Kurds, Arabs, Christians, Turkmen and other groups are in a bitter struggle for power." So, even though no one would say where the disputed ballot boxes came from, all the tainted materials on display came from a Northern province.
Where are Scully and Mulder?
One last thing--the "final" results will not become official until after Wednesday because parties can still "lodge complaints or dispute the results announced" until then (according to the AP).
posted by WCharles @ 2/15/2005 12:29:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home