Centerfield

So, the Shia have found a backbone.(The Kurds already proved they had one)
Not an easy thing to do after being the victim of decades of brutality (not to mention the current round of threats). The Shia and Kurds voted, and the Sunni gave everybody the finger.

I guess the question is, what now?

Now comes the real test of democracy.

How good a looser are the Sunni and how good a winner are the Shia?
Did the Shia split their vote between secular and religious parties?
Will the secular Shia form a coalition with the Kurds?
Will the election discourage the insurgents, or have no effect?
Most importantly, can they form a government and field and army so we can leave?

I opposed the war and still have very serious concerns about the long-term viability of Iraqi viability, but I think open minded individuals need to recognize positive steps as they occur. Today's election is one such step. Bush deserves credit for it, if not for staring a war.

Speaking cautiously, high turnout sounds positive even if it corresponds to all the Kurds and Shia voting, and none of the Sunnis.

So hopefully this is a small positive step leading to the first really big challenge: governing. My guess is that it'll proceed with the handing out of dollars, favors, jobs, etc, in the hope of fostering a positive response from the electorate. I keep hoping the idea of setting aside some portion of state oil revenue as a stipend to the people gets some wind. And I expect that the biggest PR weapon in the new government's arsenal will be used to good effect, maybe as a dstraction to the public at the first rough patch. That weapon, of course, is the trial of Saddam Hussein.

But the thing that is the most important to what a democratic Iraq might look like with the passing of a generation is the formulation of a constitution and the nature of the rights it acknowledges and the goals it prioritizes. Separation of church and state is the MOST important, and Zarquawi knows it.

But the nature of this constitution needs to be determined by Iraqis, not us. We should think of ourselves as being in position where we should surely give as much advice as Iraqis will take, but make it clear that we don't think we're in a position we have any right to grant consent. This is the point where, if our most high-minded rhetoric is at all true, we have to begin relinquishing the reins.It HAS TO be a constitution by Iraqis, for Iraqis, for better or worse.

A majority of eligible voters turning out is a major repudiation of the insurgents. Tongue in cheek, I can hardly wait for the critics to start complaining that voter turnout was down from the last election, when there was 100% turnout. And whining about how tough it was for Iraqis to fill out those ballots, because they weren't all pre-marked as they were under the previous government.

The Shia and Kurds voted, and the Sunni gave everybody the finger.

From what I've seen so far, a lot of the Sunni did vote, just not as many as we'd have liked. And the only finger I keep seeing on the wires is an index finger, stained with purple ink, being held up proudly.

It may not be a middle finger, but someone is certainly giving someone the finger, you betcha.

Tully: You must be watching Fox again. Y'know that stuff will rot your brain :-}

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0131/p01s02-woiq.html

“While voters crowded to vote in Shiite areas such as the poor suburb of Sadr City, insurgent- and Sunni-dominated cities to the north and west, like Fallujah and Ramadi - where disgust at the vote runs deepest, and intimidation from extremist is most persuasive - reported some near-empty polling stations. “

Why don't we wait for the final result to be tabulated?

A common mistake the news makes is references to Shia, Kurds and Sunni. The majority of Kurds are Sunni.

Another point is the Iraqi constitution. Is there any reason to believe that the constitution will be perfect the first go-around? Ours certainly wasn't and we have amended it several times. There is no reason to think the Iraqi version will fare any different and will be changed as the citizens see better way to govern themselves.

EG, it's a legitimate distinction to draw. In political terms Kurdish Sunni and Arabic Sunni are two distinctly different groups with distinctly different agendas. We see the same thing in the Balkans. Croats, Serbs and Bosnians are all of the same ethnicity. The difference is religious. The Serbs have loyalty to the Eastern Orthodox, the Croats are Catholic and the Bosnian Muslims are... Muslims.

Still... you'd think that some enterprising Sunni guru would see the benefits of setting aside ethic rivalries to pair up with fellow Sunni so as to increase their political clout. Both are minorities in Iraq, after all. But, I suspect that the very idea of cooperating with Kurds is beyond the pale to Iraqi Sunnia Arabs.

Exactly, Kevin. Ethnic and cultural differences are greater indicators of behavior than religious commonality.

The same can be said in the US.

Actually, I understand that many of the most popular lists in the election included Sunni reps. The Kurds and the Shia recognize that the Sunni have to be represented in drafting a constitution.

It looks like the majority of the country want to ensure the protection of the rights of minorities.

I want to point out two additional things:

1. A lot of the pundits (at least the ones I see) were saying that there was no way these elections could be held as scheduled. Now that they have, they are saying that the election was the easy part. Whoever said irony was dead?

2. Somebody should have taken me up on my challenge on Friday. Looks like Iraqi turnout was just about the same as US turnout in November.

LR,

#1. Yes. It's not lost on me.

#2. Yes. Or even a bit higher, despite the successful "boycott" (threats against life and limb and family for voting) in some of the Baathist areas.

Hey, Bob? As noted by EG, the use of the term "Sunni" to describe the areas where turnout was low is misleading. Look at the map in the article The use of the term "Baathist" would be much more accurate. The Islamo-fascist factions don't want democracy or open elections. (Have they ever?) And they used time-tested methods to try and suppress it. But those methods didn't work in most of the country.

"Why should I be afraid?" asked Arifa Abed Mohamed, an elderly woman in a black abaya, who was first to vote at dawn on one Baghdad polling station. "I am afraid only from God."

Women with babies stood in line for hours to vote, and get their fingers stained. My favorite pic from the election didn't show up on Fox at all (that I know of, as what little TV coverage I watched was mostly CNN--Geraldo still nauseates me) but at the New York Times. An Iraqi woman holding up two fingers, one of them stained with pruple ink, in a "Peace" sign. With a big smile on her face.

Part of what the election shows is that, in spite of the fear that 9/11 has wrought, it is much harder than we think, short of a major nuclear strike, to completely disrupt with violence a society a modern (or even only quasi modern) society. We weren't able to do it by bombing Germany or Viet Nam, the Islamists weren't able to do it with 9/11 and the insurgents--as difficult as they made it, if people are determined to do something (and if you have a strong government--ie, the US)behind it, society is incredibly resistent.

Outside of "total war" it usual takes an act of nature to disrupt a society. Even then society tends to be resilient. Look at the pandemic of 1918, as devastating as it was, society didn't crumble (shiver and cough, yes, but not crumble). On the other hand the Black Death caused a major restructuring of society.

I think it all comes down to whether people perceive it is in their best interest to cooperate with society. The Shia and Kurds have made the decision to cooperate with the democratic process. I have yet to see any reliable data supporting the supposition that the Sunni want to. The final election results MAY show the Sunni temperament.

I would also point out that while the Shia and Kurds clearly want to vote, its not yet clear what they are voting for.