Electioneering
The forthcoming elections in Iraq pose a number of important questions for the anti-war movement. Should we support calls for boycotts? Are those participating in the election "collaborators" as some have suggested? Is the whole exercise, in truth, more or less irrelevant?
The issue has provoked a debate between Gilbert Achar and Alex Callinicos (Socialist Workers Party head honcho) which merits attention, thought and action from the wider movement. The debate was begun by Achar who points out that "the history of decolonization is full of instances of elections or consultations held under occupation as major steps toward independence and the evacuation of foreign troops. For many years, the Palestinians have been fighting for the right to hold elections under Israeli occupation." On this basis he contends that a dogmatic opposition to the elections as nothing more than legitimation for the ongoing US/UK occupation is a mistake. Indeed he goes further, noting that the elections have been forced on the occupying forces by mass action on the part of the Shia population lead by Grand Ayatollh Ali Sistani. On this basis he suggests that the elections, coupled with "the legitimate actions of resistance" (a point on which he elaborates along lines not disimilar to my own analysis of "the resistance" in Iraq) and action in the US and UK could help to bring about an expeditious withdrawal of the occupying powers.
Alex Callinicos responded to Achar's original article which he claims to have read "with a growing sense of dismay" a few days later. In it he makes a number of interesting points, particulalrly with regard to the resistance whom he seem to imply Achar is equating with Zarqawi. In response Achar wrote a further piece in which he deals with a number of Callinicos's disagreements, criticises the consistency of his analysis and clarifies a number of his original points.
The various contributions are all worth reading in full. For my part I don't agree with the entirety of either protagonist's arguments. For my part, I think that the elections have the potential to fuel sectarian conflict in Iraq. Sistani has called for Shia to participate in the elections and they are likely to do as they are told in potentially massive numbers. The many parties boycotting the election are overwhelmingly Sunni and the capacity of militants to prevent people voting by the use of violence is much greater in Sunni areas (indeed Seumas Milne has suggested that militias in Shia areas may "dragoon" voters to the polls). The cumulative effect of all these forces is that we are likely to see a stark difference between Shia and Sunni partipation in the elections which can only deligitmise the resulting assembly in the eyes of the Sunni community.
Quite how this should inform strategy I am not sure, but I think it is important to bear mind and should be recalled when in the aftermath of the elections supporters of the occupation hold up the turnout (which is likely to be high, albeit with the provisos discussed above) as proof that the invasion and occupation have been a success and that the anti-war movement were wrong all along.
Update: Callinicos has replied to Achar's reply to his original reply (if you see what I mean).
The issue has provoked a debate between Gilbert Achar and Alex Callinicos (Socialist Workers Party head honcho) which merits attention, thought and action from the wider movement. The debate was begun by Achar who points out that "the history of decolonization is full of instances of elections or consultations held under occupation as major steps toward independence and the evacuation of foreign troops. For many years, the Palestinians have been fighting for the right to hold elections under Israeli occupation." On this basis he contends that a dogmatic opposition to the elections as nothing more than legitimation for the ongoing US/UK occupation is a mistake. Indeed he goes further, noting that the elections have been forced on the occupying forces by mass action on the part of the Shia population lead by Grand Ayatollh Ali Sistani. On this basis he suggests that the elections, coupled with "the legitimate actions of resistance" (a point on which he elaborates along lines not disimilar to my own analysis of "the resistance" in Iraq) and action in the US and UK could help to bring about an expeditious withdrawal of the occupying powers.
Alex Callinicos responded to Achar's original article which he claims to have read "with a growing sense of dismay" a few days later. In it he makes a number of interesting points, particulalrly with regard to the resistance whom he seem to imply Achar is equating with Zarqawi. In response Achar wrote a further piece in which he deals with a number of Callinicos's disagreements, criticises the consistency of his analysis and clarifies a number of his original points.
The various contributions are all worth reading in full. For my part I don't agree with the entirety of either protagonist's arguments. For my part, I think that the elections have the potential to fuel sectarian conflict in Iraq. Sistani has called for Shia to participate in the elections and they are likely to do as they are told in potentially massive numbers. The many parties boycotting the election are overwhelmingly Sunni and the capacity of militants to prevent people voting by the use of violence is much greater in Sunni areas (indeed Seumas Milne has suggested that militias in Shia areas may "dragoon" voters to the polls). The cumulative effect of all these forces is that we are likely to see a stark difference between Shia and Sunni partipation in the elections which can only deligitmise the resulting assembly in the eyes of the Sunni community.
Quite how this should inform strategy I am not sure, but I think it is important to bear mind and should be recalled when in the aftermath of the elections supporters of the occupation hold up the turnout (which is likely to be high, albeit with the provisos discussed above) as proof that the invasion and occupation have been a success and that the anti-war movement were wrong all along.
Update: Callinicos has replied to Achar's reply to his original reply (if you see what I mean).
posted by Disillusioned kid at 4:55 pm
0 comments
