Be careful what you wish for, election footnote

Columnist Scott Burchill, writing in The Age (Australia) for February 7 declares the fact that elections took place in Iraq is "a good thing" - but he then reminds us that

[c]ontrary to media reporting, particularly in outlets that led the cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the United States and Britain were strongly opposed to elections and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a ballot.

Citing the facts that the US resisted elections and agreed to them only under pressure from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and others, Burchill calls the celebratory coverage "a stunning case of wilful amnesia."

That's an excellent point, but I want to focus on something else he said.

The US said Iraq was too turbulent for full elections and that a vote couldn't be held until a complete national census was held. Sistani's aides countered that food-ration cards issued to every Iraqi family could be used as registration documents for the elections. And that's what's happening now.

File this with the Unintended Consequences Division. Interpress Service (Italy) reported after the election that

[m]any Iraqis said Monday that their names were marked on a list provided by the government agency that provides monthly food rations before they were allowed to vote. ...

"Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote," said Saeed Jodhet, a 21-year-old engineering student who voted in the Hay al-Jihad district of Baghdad. ...

Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies.

The marking of the names on the list may have simply been a way of preventing double voting, just as voter registration lists are used in the US. But the fact remains that the use of ration cards as voter registration cards very likely artificially inflated the vote totals because voting became linked, intentionally or otherwise, with receiving the food rations on which almost every Iraqi family depends.

That idea is backed up by a report from the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) last week, which described people voting because after their experiences with "elections" under Saddam Hussein, they were afraid to not vote, afraid of the potential consequences. As a result,

[t]hat legacy of fear, paradoxically, drove a minority of voters in the southern city of Karbala to come out for the January 30 ballot for the wrong reasons.

Oda Sakran, a 63-year-old farmer in this mainly Shia region, failed to take part in the 2002 elections, in which official figures showed that Saddam received nearly 100 per cent of the vote.

For his omission Sakran was arrested and tortured, and his food rations were then severely cut. This year, he felt obliged to vote because of that bitter experience. "I don't want to have problems with those [political] parties because they don't respect anyone," he said, by way of explanation.

Other Karbala resident said rumours were circulating that people would be arrested if they didn't turn up for the polls.

Fatima Hasan, a 50-year-old illiterate woman, said she went to the polls for fear of being kicked out of her home. "I participated in the election to protect myself and my children," she said. "But we don't want to interfere in politics as it will bring us difficulties."

Voters were seen putting blank ballots in the boxes, fearing to chose one slate lest the others get angry with them. Others checked off all the lists, saying they supported them all, likely for the same reason.

Even at that, the early estimate of 72% turnout, which I suspected was much too high, has been cut back to 60% and could drop further. Farid Ayar, a spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission for Iraq, said the earlier figure

was "only guessing" and "just an estimate...." He added that it will be some time before the IECI can issue accurate figures on the turnout.

"Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it's over," he said. "It is too soon to say that those were the official numbers."

I think Burchill had it exactly right: the fact that an election happened was a good thing. But it does seem that the election, both in turnout and in prospects for the future, simply isn't all we were expected to believe.