|
WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East : Iraq
US proconsul cancels municipal election in Iraq
By Peter Symonds
23 June 2003
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
The cancellation of an election for the post of mayor in the
southern Iraqi city of Najaf demonstrates once again that the
Bush administration has no intention of allowing even the semblance
of democracy in the country.
The poll, which was due to take place last Saturday, was being
stage-managed from start to finish by the US army. Lieutenant
Colonel Christopher Conlin, a Marine commander, appeared on local
TV to announce the election. Late last month US marines were sent
to local schools to help teachers to register voters and a central
location was chosen where soldiers were to count the vote.
The event appears to have been designed as a public relations
showpiece. While municipal administrations in other cities have
all been handpicked by the US-led occupying forces, Najaf was
to be the exception, with a mayor chosen in the first open
election. Some 18 candidates began campaigning and each
was promised equal time on the local television station.
But no sooner had the voter registration begun than the head
of the US military occupation, Paul Bremer III, stepped in to
abruptly overrule the local commander, suspend the election and,
then, just over a week ago, postpone it indefinitely. The election,
he declared, would be premature in the absence of
proper electoral legislation and procedures.
Local US soldiers in Najaf had a hard time believing the explanation.
Speaking rather cautiously, Major David Toth told the New York
Times that the city was stable and we thought
the people would be ready for it [the election]. The real
reason for Bremers decision was that the man widely tipped
to win the poll Asad Sultan Abu Gilal, 51was not to
Washingtons liking.
Alluding to the problems, a senior official in Bremers
office declared to the New York Times: The most organised
political groups in many areas are rejectionists, extremists and
remnants of the Baathists. They have the advantage over the other
groups. In other words, the US has no confidence that anyone
sympathetic to its rule would be elected, even in a carefully
managed poll.
Gilal is hardly a Baathist or extremist.
He is a member of the Shiite-based Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), was jailed by Saddam Hussein for six
years and forced to flee the country after the failed Shiite uprising
in 1991. While US officials are now accusing SCIRI of being Iranian-backed,
it was, prior to the American invasion, one of six opposition
groups that qualified under the Iraq Liberation Act passed in
the US Congress in 1998 for American support and money.
Like the majority of the Iraqi people, however, SCIRI is rejectionistthat
is, it demands that US troops leave Iraq. Last Thursday, more
than 1,000 people gathered in Najaf to protest against the cancellation
of the election. In a rather moderate statement to the media,
Gilal warned: If they dont give us freedom, what will
we do? We have patience, but not for a long time.
Bremers cancellation of the Najaf poll is no isolated
aberration. Shortly after arriving in Baghdad last month, he called
off plans for a gathering of Iraqi exiles and other leaders to
set up an interim Iraqi administration to advise the US occupying
force. Bremer declared instead that he would choose a group of
25 to 30 Iraqis to form an advisory council. And while he would
broadly accept the groups recommendations, he
warned that he would veto any decisions that are fundamentally
against the coalitions interests or in the better
interests of Iraq. National elections have been relegated
to the distant future.
Bremer has also outlawed the Baath Party and initiated a far-reaching
purge of former membersa process that allows wide scope
to block the appointment of any Iraqi official regarded as hostile
to Washington, whether a member of the Baath Party or not.
At the same time, Bremer has been tightening the US grip over
the media. Last week he issued a sweeping censorship edict on
Prohibited Media Activity that includes encouraging
civil disorder, advocating support for the banned Baath Party
or inciting violence against coalition forces. Media
deemed to be engaged in prohibited activity face the revocation
of their licences and the confiscation of their equipment. Individuals
who are arrested and prosecuted face jail terms of up to a year
and fines of up to $US1,000.
Even before the new regulations had been promulgated, marines
stormed into the offices of the newspaper Sadda-al-Auma
in Najaf, seized copies of the latest edition urging residents
to resist the US occupation and detained at least four employees.
A 32-year-old guard Ali Chiad said that he was bound, hooded and
held for four days while US interrogators questioned the papers
staff.
The media in Baghdad reacted angrily to Bremers censorship
measures. The widely-read Assaah published an editorial
headlined Bremer is a Baathist to explain its decision
to cut two articles. Only four months ago, the easiest accusation
to make against us was that we were agents for America. Today,
with the same ease, they put sacks on our heads and accuse us
of being agents for Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party.
These comments are just a pale reflection of the growing hostility
felt by broad layers of the Iraqi population towards the suppression
of basic democratic rights and the countrys appalling social
conditions. Bremers autocratic methods of rule testify to
the lack of any significant political base of support inside Iraq
for the colonial-style US occupation of the country.
See Also:
American troops shoot down two Iraqi
protesters
[20 June 2003]
Washingtons war of terror in Iraq
[18 June 2003]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |