In the United States, the only concern voters have on Election Day is if parking will be available at their designated polling stations.
This is a stark contrast to the brave people of Iraq, who, last week, defied constant bombardment of mortars and rockets in Baghdad and other cities and went to the polls to elect a new parliament.
Anti-government insurgents vowed to disrupt the parliamentary elections and were true to their word as there were more than 100 earth-shaking blasts in the capital alone — this was before the polls had even opened. At least 38 people were killed and dozens were injured by the day’s end.
Naturally, voters were frightened away, but only initially. Iraqis were voting for the second time since Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled in the 2003.
What was at stake? 325 parliamentary seats that some 6,200 different candidates — from over 80 political entities — were vying for. The entity that wins the most seats will be in charge of nominating the next prime minister, a position that yields the most political power in Iraq.
A key difference adding to the significance of this election was the participation of Sunni Muslims, who largely boycotted the previous election. Sunnis voted in waves; and an intense competition for Shiite votes drove up participation in Baghdad and in the south, elections observers have said.
Further analysis suggests that this was arguably the most open, most competitive election in the country’s history, a history more familiar with war, colonial rule, and dictatorship, than with competitive elections.
Voters were choosing between mainly Shiite Islamist parties that have dominated Iraqi politics since the U.S.-led invasion, and parties offering a more secular stance. Struggling to find a role in Iraq’s political game, Sunni politicians have been hard-pressed of late.
Six weeks before Election Day, the Iraqi Accountability and Judicial Commission announced the decision to disqualify more than 500 candidates. A move that suppressed Hussein’s Baath party, the disqualifications were politically motivated, disenfranchising Sunnis. Observers within Iraq believe that the Baathists are “coming back to life” within the country, and why wouldn’t they — the word Baath, means resurrection in Arabic.
For the U.S., the election represents another benchmark in the Obama administration’s agenda — bringing us closer to their September plan of an American troop withdrawal.
In Washington, President Obama praised the vote.
“I have great respect for the millions of Iraqis who refused to be deterred by acts of violence and who exercised their right to vote today,” he said in a statement. “Their participation demonstrates that the Iraqi people have chosen to shape their future through the political process.”
The president’s statement eloquently describes his vision for the Iraqi people as they clearly have made themselves part of the political process. But, what if the Iraqi’s political future does not bear the U.S. stamp of approval?
Iraq’s political life is in its infancy, especially when compared to its neighbor — the 30-year-old revolutionary Iranian government. With Baghdad housing the largest American embassy in the world, U.S. supervision will not be far away, though.
Experts predict that whoever the victorious entity is, this victor will likely only win a small majority of the Iraq’s parliament. This could foreshadow political deadlock in Baghdad.
Winning a small majority in an election with a reported 62 percent turnout may seem like a solid accomplishment, but Saddam Hussein would scoff at such a result — given his usual 99 percent margin of victory. He would scoff, that is, were he not dead.
Hanif Zarrabi is a Middle Eastern history graduate student and a columnist for the Daily 49er.