Iraqi Islamic Party Withdraws from January’s Elections

To almost no one’s surprise, the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni entity, has decided to withdraw from participating in the January 30 elections in Iraq. Secretary-General Tareq al-Hashimi explained, “The Iraqi Islamic Party is withdrawing from the elections because we do not think the situation will improve in the next few weeks to give conditions for credible elections." In other words, voting in a war zone is problematic. The American-chosen election date looks even less credible now than ever before.

Of course, in Iraq, nothing is quite as straightforward as Mr. al-Hashimi would make one believe. According to the Iraqi Electoral Commission, the referee in this wrestling match, there has been no formal request by the IIP to withdraw. Its list of 275 candidates still appears on ballot papers that will be used. So, technically, the party remains active. However, the Commission has said if a formal notice arrives in its mail, all votes for the Iraqi Islamic Party would be considered “invalid.” Could the situation become more muddled?

The flaw in the entire Bush plan remains the ethnic division of Iraq: 60% Shi’ite Arab, 20% Sunni Arab, 20% Kurdish, with smatterings of others. Anything approaching one-man one-vote means a Shi’ite government. The Sunni have run Iraq (even before the Saddamite regime) for decades and payback is an honored custom in that part of the world. The Sunni have nothing to gain by participating in a clean and fair election.

The Bush team has suggested that some ministries be set aside for the Sunni, and it is unfortunate that they have come to this conclusion only now. Had the original plan called for set-asides (which are admittedly undemocratic but are politically wise), it might not be a problem now. It appears to be too little too late.

The worst part of this is the lack of credibility that the elections will have if no voting takes place in the Sunni regions. Would an American election have any validity if the states in the Ohio Valley didn’t vote? Could Britain have a legitimate prime minister if no one in Yorkshire cast a ballot?

Those who look to democracy for good government are naïve at best because that is not its purpose. Democracy provides the only legitimacy (now that the divine right of kings is gone) a government can have. An election is the ritual by which that legitimacy is bestowed. Mr. Bush has said, “The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." That noble (if horribly unrealistic) goal cannot come from a boycotted election.


© Copyright 2004 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.


Home