Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Now, previously, I had written against direct elections, although I gave his intentions the benefit of the doubt. Others, however, have been less than flattering (via LGF). Nonetheless, I think we can all be glad that the IGC is showing some spine and opposing Sistani, whose idea will move Iraq towards anything but a stable democracy.
Is the IGC a bunch of self-serving schemers who like their jobs a bit too much? Probably. But do we still need to show a certain Shiite cleric who's really looking out for the well-being of every Iraqi, instead of every Shiite Iraqi? Damn straight we do.Rantingprofs puts it best:
And what the Council is saying, apparently has been saying, is that if this election codifies a situation where everyone automatically caves to Sistani because it's easy, then we're creating a democracy on the grounds on giving one single cleric a veto over procedures -- with no institutional basis for doing so. The Council is right to not want to set that up as a precedent, and to not want to teach Sistani to expect that, no matter how big his following.And indeed here's what an IGC member said:
"We cannot deny there is an attempt to set a precedent on Sistani's side and our side," one member said. "This is more than about elections. It's about whether we will allow one man to dictate the terms of our sovereignty.""One man, one vote" indeed.