Iraqi Constituional rejection made harder

[boutons]

After major fraud alleged by election monitors in Afghanistan, the voting in Iraq is looking, hmm, like voting in Florida.

If the Sunnis drop out of the political "process", the Constitution is not approved, the next step is civil war.

===========================

The New York Times
October 3, 2005

Sunnis Query Move to Ease Iraqi Charter Approval
By REUTERS

Filed at 8:29 a.m. ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Sunni officials and independent Iraqi politicians reacted with dismay on Monday at a move by the Shi'ite and Kurdish majority to make it harder to defeat an October 15 referendum on a new constitution.

Analysts also questioned the fairness of the move by Iraq's parliament, which set electoral rules making it far simpler for the draft constitution to pass -- as Shi'ites and Kurds want -- than for it to be defeated by Sunni opponents.

If the constitution is defeated, it would be a severe setback to the U.S.-driven political process in Iraq, where a Sunni-led insurgency has caused chaos for more than two years.

``It is a clear forgery,'' said Saleh al-Mutlaq, spokesman for the Iraqi National Dialogue, a leading Sunni Arab group, and one of those who helped draw up the new draft constitution.

``They want this constitution to pass despite the will of the people.''

In a session on Sunday, Shi'ites and Kurds, who hold more than three quarters of parliament's 275 seats, decided the existing interim constitution should be interpreted in such a way as to create two different thresholds for the referendum.

For it to pass, a majority of those who turn out to vote have to say ``Yes,'' while for it to be defeated, two-thirds of registered voters in three or more provinces have to say ``No.''

What the interim constitution actually says is: ``The general referendum will be successful and the draft constitution ratified if a majority of the voters in Iraq approve and if two -thirds of the voters in three or more governorates do not reject it.''

The interim constitution's wording suggests ``voters'' means those who turn out to vote in both cases, not registered voters, which is a much higher benchmark. In elections in January, less than 60 percent of Iraqis who registered actually voted.

``DOUBLE STANDARD''

``It's unfair and I didn't vote for it,'' Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish member of parliament, told Reuters. ``It's a double standard and it shouldn't have happened.''

With just a handful of seats in parliament after a boycott of January's first post-Saddam Hussein polls, Sunnis were in no position to defeat the Shi'ite-Kurdish proposal.

Joost Hiltermann, an Iraq expert with the International Crisis Group, described the decision as a clear example of what happens when the majority decides it rules in a democracy.

``Obviously they want to win,'' he said of the Sh'ites and Kurds, who tailored parts of the constitution to suit themselves.

``But to play by this kind of majoritarian rule is very dangerous, it's playing with fire,'' he told Reuters from Amman. ''They are excluding one community to make it look as if they have agreement.''

Hiltermann expressed concern that by further excluding the Sunni minority, the Shi'ites and Kurds would over time end up pushing more disaffected Sunnis toward the insurgency.

Farid Ayar, a member of Iraq's Electoral Commission, which is organising the referendum, told Reuters the interim constitution clearly intended to define voters in the referendum as those who turn out to vote, not registered voters.

``It is an issue and it needs to be resolved,'' he said.

Mutlaq, the Sunni politician, said he and others may now call on Sunnis to boycott the referendum, a move that could further marginalise the community from the political process.

Other analysts also conceded that there was unfairness in parliament's decision, but said it just went to show how essential it was that the constitution was approved.

``The fact is the consequences of this constitution being rejected are massive, they're just too ghastly to contemplate,'' said Martin Navias, a research associate at the center for defense studies at King's College London.

``If this referendum is rejected, it's an explicit rejection of the whole political process ... It cannot be allowed to fail.''

* Copyright 2005 Reuters Ltd.

[boutons]

It seems that everybody agrees that if the Constitution is rejected next week, it would be a disaster. Sunni leaders were encouraging Sunnis to vote against it.

So the Kurds and Shiites have rigged the election downwards to make rejection almost impossible, pissing off the Sunnis who now talk about boycotting the voting, and pissing off US, etc.

If the Sunnis don't come into the process, then there will be almost no chance of a political, peaceful end to the Sunni/jihadi insurgency.

Essentially, no Sunnis, the insurgency will continue and the war against the insurgency will be unwinnable, so no democratic Iraq.

========================


The New York Times
October 4, 2005

Election Move Seems to Ensure Iraqis' Charter
By ROBERT F. WORTH

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 3 - Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish leaders quietly adopted new rules over the weekend that will make it virtually impossible for the constitution to fail in the coming national referendum.

The move prompted Sunni Arabs and a range of independent political figures to complain that the vote was being fixed.

Some Sunni leaders who have been organizing a campaign to vote down the proposed constitution said they might now boycott the referendum on Oct. 15. Other political leaders also reacted angrily, saying the change would seriously damage the vote's credibility.

Under the new rules, the constitution will fail only if two-thirds of all registered voters - rather than two-thirds of all those actually casting ballots - reject it in at least three of the 18 provinces.

The change, adopted during an unannounced vote in Parliament on Sunday afternoon, effectively raises the bar for those who oppose the constitution. Given that fewer than 60 percent of registered Iraqis voted in the January elections, the chances that two-thirds will both show up at the polls and vote against the document in three provinces would appear to be close to nil.

"This is a mockery of democracy, a mockery of law," said Adnan al-Janabi, a secular Sunni representative and a member of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's party. "Many Sunnis have been telling me they didn't believe in this democratic process, and now I believe they are vindicated."

The rule change could prove a serious embarrassment to American officials in Iraq, who have spent recent weeks struggling to persuade Sunni Arabs to vote for the constitution and even trying to broker last-minute changes that would make it more palatable to them.

There was some confusion on Monday about the origin of the change. One member of Iraq's electoral commission said the commission had already made a similar ruling last month, while another member denied that. But Ali Dabagh, a moderate Shiite member of Parliament, said there had been no public ruling until Sunday's vote.

Mr. Dabagh also said the United Nations had expressed dissatisfaction on Monday with the rule change, and that the National Assembly would meet Tuesday to reconsider it.

There were indications from knowledgeable diplomats that the United States, too, was unhappy with the development and hoped it would be modified.

Other Shiite members of the assembly defended their action. They said that if only people who came to the polls were counted in the referendum, insurgent attacks could frighten away so many voters that the constitution could be rejected on the basis of a small, unrepresentative sample of voters.

"You should not violate the rights of the majority," Maryam Reyes, a member of the Shiite alliance that controls a majority of seats in the assembly, said in support of the measure.

Ms. Reyes said the assembly members had not changed election law, but only clarified the meaning of the word "voters" in the relevant passage. The legal passage in question states: "The general referendum will be successful and the draft constitution ratified if a majority of voters in Iraq approve and if two-thirds of voters in three or more governorates do not reject it."

In their vote on Sunday, the Shiite and Kurdish members interpreted the law as follows: the constitution will pass if a majority of ballots are cast for it; it will fail if two-thirds of registered voters in three or more provinces vote against it. In other words, the lawmakers designated two different meanings for the word "voters" in one passage. "I think it's a double standard, and it's unfair," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish assembly member who, like many other lawmakers, said he had not been present during the vote and only learned of it afterward. "When it's in your favor, you say 'voters.' When it's not in your favor you say 'eligible voters.' "

In effect, the new interpretation makes not voting a show of support for the constitution and runs against the apparent intent of the law. The National Assembly is empowered to change the transitional law - which was written under the American occupation in 2003 - but only with the approval of two-thirds of its members and of the Presidency Council. Because they regard their action as a mere clarification, the lawmakers did not seek that kind of approval.

There were also new signs of tension between the Shiite and Kurdish alliances that dominate Iraq's transitional government. Kurdish leaders threatened to withdraw from the alliance last month, and on Sunday a high-ranking Kurdish official called for the resignation of the Shiite prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Leaders of the two blocs met Monday night to iron out differences on a range of issues, including Kurdish demands for faster Kurdish resettlement in Kirkuk, the contested northern city.

If the Kurds were to follow through on their threat to withdraw, it would be a serious blow to Iraq's government. The Shiites have a narrow majority in the assembly, but if a vote of confidence were called and even a few Shiites were to vote against Mr. Jaafari, the government would collapse, throwing Iraq's public affairs into greater disarray.

Continuing insurgent violence across Iraq on Monday left at least a dozen people dead.

In western Baghdad, a roadside bomb exploded near a convoy carrying Ibrahim Bahr, the oil minister, apparently in an assassination attempt. Three of the minister's guards were killed and two were injured but Mr. Bahr was unhurt, Interior Ministry officials said.

In Doura, a lawless neighborhood in southern Baghdad, a car bomb exploded, killing two and injuring three. Elsewhere in the capital, three bodies were found Tuesday morning, with their hands bound and bullets in their heads, the officials said.

In Kirkuk, gunmen opened fire on a police patrol with a belt-fed machine gun, killing two officers and wounding three, police officials said. Two more police officers were killed just south of the city when a roadside bomb exploded on their convoy.

South of Baghdad in Hilla, a bomb detonated near a popular restaurant, killing one bystander and injuring three, witnesses said.

The nonprofit Human Rights Watch issued a report Monday stating that insurgents in Iraq have committed war crimes by making civilians the targets of mass killings, and that some of their abuses may constitute crimes against humanity.

Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi and Qais Mizher contributed reporting for this article.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[Hook Dem]

You know Boutons, this is not so much different than what we see on this forum. Democrats don't like Republicans and Republicans don't like Democrats. The only difference is that we haven't started killing each other wholesale yet and it may come to that before it is over. I think this line of thinking is a sickness that has become the past time of this country. We say we are civilized and would never do such a thing but I am not so sure after seeing the anger displayed in here. I am not trying to dismiss what you have posted and I do not have the answer to it all. Just a thought. Please do not reply to me in a triumph method. I am well aware of what is going on and I do not relish it.

[boutons]

They unfixed the fix:

======================

The New York Times
October 5, 2005

Iraqi Lawmakers Reverse Election Change for Charter
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 7:03 a.m. ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq's National Assembly voted on Wednesday to reverse last-minute changes it had made to rules for next week's referendum on a new constitution following criticism by the United Nations that the rules were unfair to the Sunni minority.

After a brief debate, the Assembly voted 119-28 to restore the original voting rules for the referendum, which will take place Oct. 15. Washington hopes a majority ''yes'' vote in the referendum will unite Iraq's disparate factions and erode support for the country's bloody insurgency.

U.S. and U.N. officials hope that restoring the original rules will avert a boycott of the referendum by the Sunni minority, action that would have deeply undermined the credibility of the vote and set back efforts to bring Sunnis into the political process.

Many Sunnis oppose the charter and want it rewritten, believing it would divide Iraq and leave Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north with virtual autonomy and control over the country's oil wealth while isolating Sunnis with little power or revenue in central and western areas.

The original rules, now restored, mean that Sunnis can veto the constitution by getting a two-thirds ''no'' vote in three provinces, even if the charter wins majority approval nationwide. Sunni Arabs are dominant in four of the 18 provinces.

On Sunday, Iraq's Shiite- and Kurdish-controlled parliament effectively closed that loophole with their rule change. The legislature decided that a simple majority of those who cast votes means the constitution's victory -- but that two-thirds of registered voters must cast ''no'' ballots in three provinces to defeat it.

That interpretation had raised the bar to a level almost impossible to meet. In a province of 1 million registered voters, for example, 660,000 would have had to vote ''no'' -- even if that many didn't even come to the polls.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company