Push Shia anti-occupation forces to boycott elections of Dec 15
Illegal and illegitimate
Any evaluation has first to re-iterate that the referendum held by the occupation forces is illegal according to international law. An occupying power is not allowed to change the institutional set-up of the occupied territory. The approval of the referendum by the UN once and again shows that it is either an instrument of imperialism or does not exist.
No “democratic standards” whatsoever where met by the vote, something the US and their allies usually use against governments not complying to their dictate. Firstly, of all a vote under the bayonets of foreign occupation soldiers can never be free. Secondly, the voters’ lists – as already for the fake elections of January 2005 — were not based on the records of an public administration (which was deliberately smashed) but on the UN compiled lists of those receiving food rations. Everybody knows that these list being manipulated from several sides. Today there is no force which could hinder the occupation’s puppets to further manipulate the lists. Thirdly, there was no independent monitoring of the elections which is nothing but an open invitation to fraud. The UN limited itself to control the final processing of the data coming from the polls.
Decisive fraud
The results of the US sponsored referendum in Iraq was decided already beforehand. In no case Washington would have accepted a NO which had spoiled the entire exercise. The immediate announcement of their victory by the mouth of Condolezza Rice is the evidence for that fact. They did, however, not foresee such troubles, to produce the scheduled results, which they could release only some ten days later.
In the focus of attention was the province of Nineveh with is restive capital Mosul. While a two third majority of the NO had been expected in the predominately Sunni provinces of Anbar and Salah al-Din Nineveh could have been the third such province thus bringing the draft to fall.
First of all it is the demographic composition of Mosul which suggests an overwhelming victory of the NO. By majority the province is inhabited by Sunni Arabs. The Kurds are only one of several minorities like Turkmen, Assyrian Christians, Yezedi and Shabaks. All of them refuse the Kurdish claim on the province facilitated and sanctioned by the US imposed constitution. Given the fact that the forces opposing the draft had a by far higher turn-out then its backers a 2/3 majority for the NO is probable.
But there is also the strange change of results: In the first week after scrutiny figures were given that the YES even scored a majority. The US military, anxious not to loose the trustworthiness of the entire operation, intervened. The adapted figures recently released speak of a 55% majority for the NO.
A similar evaluation could be made for the province of Diala.
Resistance’s constituency massively cast their votes
Different to the armed Resistance’s call to boycott the referendum the Sunni turn-out was higher as the Shia one. They felt the danger emanating from the partition plan enshrined in the draft. Consequently they nearly by 100% supported the NO. Despite the looming fraud the masses tried to make use of the “democratic” masquerade by means of which the US imposed their project. This is why the unmasking of the fraud is so important.
Already this contradiction between the position of the armed Resistance movement and its constituency shows the urgent need for a political mass front. But the real crucial question is how to bridge the dangerous gap to the Shia which was once again displayed by the referendum. Only by the instrument of a political front the NO campaign could have been spread beyond the Sunni environment.
Shia aberration
The results show, however, that it is wrong to underestimate the US’ political capabilities to capitalise and even deepen historic conflicts. Subtracting the factors mentions the fact remains that significant parts of the Shiite population accept the constitution at least as the lesser evil. It is not by accident that the main Shia force opposing the draft as well as the occupation, namely the movement of Muqtada al Sadr, did not call to vote for NO.
This does not alter the fact that also the overwhelming majority of the Shiite people want the occupation to end. But the deception of US imposed “democracy” at least partially has its effects. Not that the Shia masses want Iraq to be divided into three entities as the US prepares for. But they apparently prefer a Shia entity ruled by their leaders collaborating with the US to a unified Iraq ruled by the re-instated Sunni elite with whom they apparently also associate the Resistance.
This is the main POLITICAL problem to be solved for the Resistance. Only a credible break with the authoritarian practices of Baath regime offering popular democracy will be able to convince sectors of the Shia political landscape for a common liberation front.
It is not enough to point to the fact that the positions of Muqtada al Sadr have certainly been ambiguous and remain so. He did not call for boycotting the fake elections of January 2005: He did not call for a NO in the referendum. Recently he announced to run together on a list with the Shia collaborators in the December 15 elections sponsored by the occupation.
If the Resistance wants to finally win it is their turn to remove the historic obstacles to a common Resistance front with sections of the Shia movement. Otherwise the US will know how to use the contradictions under the guise of democracy to further deepen the political divide into what they happen to call an “ethnic” one. Actually is only the Resistance of the Iraqi people which can bring genuine democracy.
Anti-imperialist Camp
October 27, 2005
