Iraqi election takes place
By
John Catalinotto
Published Dec 24, 2005 8:18 AM
Before discussing details about the Iraqi
election, it’s important to establish the most important facts: It was
held during the military occupation of Iraq, with a curfew and limits on travel
in place enforced by the U.S. and Iraqi puppet military. The most reactionary
collaborationist forces controlled the election rules and counted the ballots,
especially in the south and in the Kurdish regions of the northeast.
Most
candidates, whether they meant it or not, promised that the election would be a
step toward ending the occupation.
Apparently there was much greater vote
participation throughout the central and northwestern parts of the country,
where the resistance is strongest, than in the January “election” or
the Oct. 15 referendum on the “constitution.” While the U.S.
government hailed this participation as a sign of a waning resistance, it is
even more a sign that the best organized resistance forces consciously decided
not to disrupt or threaten the election in what the imperialist media calls the
“Sunni regions.” There were relatively few attacks during the voting
period.
Within days, resistance forces announ ced —and the media
reported—a resumption of attacks, especially against U.S. troops, Iraqi
puppet troops and police and Iraqi collaborators.
Within those same days,
Iraqis from the Sunni-based National Concord Front protested over election
fraud. “We reject these results announced by the commission,” Adnan
Al Dulaimi, one of the leaders of the National Concord Front, told a news
conference Dec. 20.
The reactionary and collaborationist Islamic Supreme
Council (SCIRI) and the Dawa party—Shiite religious parties strongest in
Iraq’s South—and the two major pro-occupation Kurdish parties in the
North, came out on top in the new assembly, judging by early voting results.
Altogether there were 200 charges of irregularities made against the
election.
In the referendum on the constitution held in October, it was
obvious that voting at least in Kurdish areas was fraudulent, with alleged vote
totals sometimes outstripping the eligible voters. Only by fixing the vote in
one province, Nineveh, that was expected to vote by more than two-thirds
“No” in the referendum, could the authorities get the constitution
approved.
Bush tries maneuver
The Bush administration did its
best to give a positive spin to the election, scheduling a network television
talk by George Bush and a speech in Baghdad by Dick Cheney on Dec.
18.
Bush admitted the reasons he gave for the war were false, but still
tried to sell the project as worthwhile. It was the latest of a series of
administration talks trying to win support for a “stay the course”
policy in Iraq and to justify the original aggression, which had no legitimate
excuse. From reactions to his talk, there were few signs he had convinced many
people in the U.S. that somehow the U.S. situation in Iraq had
improved.
Bush’s speech had even less effect in Iraq. As one
Westerner living in Baghdad put it, “I was going to listen to Bush’s
speech, but the electricity was out.” If anything depicts the failure of
the U.S. occupation, it is its inability to get the Iraqi economy moving and to
provide basic services for even a solid minority of the Iraqi
population.
Cheney’s talk was even more of a disaster. His visit to
Iraq was kept secret up to his arrival, and he spoke before hundreds of Marines,
usually a sympathetic and disciplined audience. This time the rank-and-file
Marines hit Cheney with tough questions about whether it was worthwhile staying
in Iraq. When Cheney ended his speech with “these colors don’t
run,” instead of getting cheers, he got no applause and one lone
whistle.
Some analysts raised the possibility that among those
participating in the election were civilian supporters of the resistance, much
as Sinn Fein was a civilian party reflecting the positions of the Irish
Republican Army. Publicly, the Baathist, nationalist and pro-communist
resistance groups said they opposed participation in the election—even
though they didn’t make armed attacks to disrupt it. These resistance
forces distanced themselves from the National Concord Front and other civilian
anti-occupation groups regarding the election.
The heavy turnout in the
center of Iraq showed in itself that anti-occupation Iraqis voted in the
election.
On Dec. 19, four days after the election, the U.S. occupiers
freed from prison some 24 high Baathist officials—people guilty of no
particular crime although some had been demonized by the U.S.’s war
propaganda—after holding them for 30 months.
Among them were two
women, Rihab Taha, a bioscientist, and Dr. Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, a biotech
researcher who was No. 39 on the U.S. list of the “most wanted
fugitives” of the Hussein regime. Dr. Ammash is known to people in the
anti-war movement worldwide for her work on the ravages of depleted uranium on
the population of Iraq stemming from the 1991 U.S.-led bombardment and anti-tank
actions.
The U.S. authorities gave no public reason for releasing these
high-level Baathist figures at this particular time.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email:
[email protected]
Subscribe
[email protected]
Support independent news
DONATE