Elections without the US
April 20th, 2013 was the first Iraqi
election without security help from the US. This election replaced 18 local
councils elected in 2009 with 18 new governorates.
The campaign for this 2013 election has been violent but not as violent as many
thought it would be. Leading up to the election there were 14 candidates
killed. The Iraqi government implemented
many security measures leading up to the elections in order to keep citizens
and candidates safe. These measures included a car ban and a curfew on Election
Day. Three providences, Anbar, Kirkuk and Nineveh,
did not hold elections because of insecurity in the region. The security
measures produced a major problem with the elections, by making the polling
centers very difficult to get to. Many Iraqis claimed that the voting centers
were too far away without the use of cars and therefore they were not able to
vote in this election.
The
violence leading up to this election has been the same violence that has
overcome Iraq and the Middle East; racial disputes between the Sunni’s and
Shiites. The fourteen candidates that have been killed in this election were
all Sunni. It is reported that some assassinations were by political opposition
but others were by Sunni radicals associated with Al Qaeda. It may seem odd
that radical Sunnis would attack other Sunnis when they want more
representation I the Shiite controlled government, but the targets have been
more moderate Sunnis that look to work with the Shiites for equality. The
deterrence of voters due to curfew and car bans is not the reason people are
not appearing at the polls to vote. The problem is fear. The violence between
the Sunnis and Shiites is deterring both voters and viable candidates.
A political science professor at a
Bagdad university explains, “Killing candidates means instilling fear and that
is why I think it will affect voter participation, because I don’t think people
will want to risk their lives again.” Many believed that the violence leading
up to this election was mild compared to what it could have been. However, next
year Iraq will hold general elections for the first time without US security
forces. This is the main concern in Iraq right now. If this amount of fear is
being provoked for eighteen local councils, what will happen in a general election
in Iraq?
Sources:
Fear is a strong deterrent. What Iraq needs to do is to secure these voting areas. What I suggest would be to have voting done in one governorate at a time so that forces can be massed into one place. If voting cannot be secured then their hopes for a democracy will be curtailed. The terrorists need to be clear on their demands, if they have any at all. This violence must be a reaction to something and that grievance must be addressed.
ReplyDeleteI think having the state run independent elections without the aid of another nation is a big moving point for Iraq because if the state wants to establish legitimacy among the people they need to break ties with international influence in these situations. However, the state of Iraq is in a pretty precarious situation. Elections are successful only when everyone cooperates and follows by the same rules and guidelines. Killing off the opposition, making polling centers difficult to reach, and trying to terrorize voters will not do the country much good in establishing faith and legitimacy in the state regardless of who carries out these actions. The Sunni and Shiites working together appears to be good news, but I think it's interesting how you bring up that the radicals want to prevent cooperation.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is too late now, it might be beneficial for Iraq to call in independent election monitors from the United Nations. When peacekeeppers implementing observer missions are called into a country it helps not only make the election freer and fairer it also helps to curb violence. It is hard to say whether or not U.N. assistance would have made a difference in this election. Although it would be worth a shot to consider U.N. election monitors for elections in the future.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see that the first time elections in Iraq are held without American influence brought so much violence. Although these acts are low in scale compared to other areas in the region, I believe it is important to draw on the violence that occurred right after U.S withdrew. In this situation and countries alike, it seems that the international community has no long-term effect in weak countries. How can we make sure our presence is longer-lasting and sufficient to rebuild a state without being directly involved?
ReplyDeleteI think it would be to Iraq's benefit to bring in UN security forces as well as election monitors. It is disturbing to think that 14 dead candidates is actually LESS than they expected. My concern is that the violence inflicted on candidates will deter people from running for office, as well as people even showing up to vote. I would assume people will have no desire to run for office or show up at the polls until they feel as though they can do so safely. Change takes time, and with the U.S. no longer providing security forces we shall see if the Iraqi government can provide safety to both candidates and voters.
ReplyDeleteEven if Iraq brings in UN security forces or holds voting in one governorate at a time, I don't see anything stopping radicals or the political opposition from committing violent acts against or murdering the elected candidates once the elections are over. And bringing in election monitors or more security forces will not provide safety to every candidate. In my opinion, the future of Iraq's general election next year looks bleak.
ReplyDelete