Speaking of elections

From the New York Times for January 12.

Baghdad, Iraq, Jan. 11 - The most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq said Sunday that members of an interim assembly must be chosen through direct elections, putting at risk White House plans to transfer sovereignty to Iraqis by July 1. His statement came despite continuing efforts to change the cleric's mind on the subject.

The cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued an edict in late June that urged Iraqis to press for general elections and that forced American officials to scrap their original plans for writing a constitution.

In November, he called again for direct elections, this time for an interim assembly, but said he would reconsider his decision if a United Nations delegation decided that such elections were not possible. In a statement issued Sunday, though, he essentially left no room for compromise by saying elections could be held "within the next months with an acceptable level of transparency and credibility."

Now, the last part of that is simply untrue, as should be obvious to anyone. The very same article notes that

[s]igns are emerging of a tenuous security situation in parts of southern Iraq, generally considered calmer than the north,

citing recent executions, demonstrations, and riots.

So why the demand for direct elections, especially quick ones? Perhaps al-Sistani really doesn't get it or, more likely, he wants to head off a situation in which rights of minorities - such as the Kurds - become entrenched in a draft constitution, preferring Shiite rule by virtue of its majority. The thinking could run that after suffering so long as an oppressed majority, to rule is our due.

In any event, this really does pose a problem for the Bushites unless they literally intend to - as the really hard right charges - cut and run.