Locke7

By SAMEER N. YACO'UB, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq (news - web sites)'s leading Sunni Muslim clerics said Wednesday the country's landmark elections lacked legitimacy because large numbers of Sunnis did not participate in the balloting, which the religious leaders had asked them to boycott.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._re_mi_ea/iraq

Uh, so they are complaining about low sunni voter turnout when earlier they were hoping for low sunni turnout by boycotting the elections. That makes absolutely no sense to me. In fact, it looks like they were trying to get low sunni turnout so they could question the legitimicy afterwards...

ObieX

If they wanted to be part of the democratic process they should have taken part in the democratic process. *shrugs* oh well, maybe next invasion.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Charlatan

I have to agree... as messed up as the situation is there... You can't make claims to that it was unfair if you purposefully don't take part...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Mephisto2

This is nothing new. As Locke says, once they boycotted the election one only expects them to complain about legitimacy. Everyone knew this was going to happen. The question is whether the Assembly can act in good faith and avoid any anti-Sunni bias.

Mr Mephisto

inkriminator

I wonder if it's the same clerics who were against elections who are now complaining against it. In either case, supposing some semblence of order comes to Iraq, and democracy becomes part of Iraq's fabric of society, the sunni clerics will realize that voting will be how they can influence things and will hopefully encourage. All the same, I've heard that the Iraqi turnout was very close to the American elections, somewhere around 60%, good for the Iraqis, a little sad for us Americanos

alansmithee

I'd be interesting to see this tactic catch on in other countries. I think it would be humourous to have parties to see who could get the most people to not vote.

jorgelito

I think there will still be Sunni representation anyways because of the method of elections: Proportional something or other (sorry, can't remember the exact term).

Also, don't forget, Kurds are Sunni too so I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

Mr. Mephisto, what Locke were you refering too? Could you you rprovide quote for me please? (Just naturally curious) Thank you.

Mojo_PeiPei

Locke7 Jorge.

Kurds may be Sunni too, but they aren't really incorparated along with the Sunni's. They are autonomous and were targetted pretty heavily by Saddam (A Sunni). I don't think there identity as Sunni Muslims factors in to their identity so much as them being Kurds does.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Seaver

Sorry but I cant feel sorry for a guy who first says he's going to hit his hand with a hammer, gets plenty of warning of the consiquences, then does it, and the complains.

Sorry to sound like a jackass... but cry more sunni's

jorgelito

No, no of course. I was just trying to "stir the pot" a bit to illustrate the complexities of it all.

I think there are many permutations and combinations of "interests" - ethnic, religious, tribal etc. I thought it was interesting, that Sunni Arab and Sunni Kurds can be so divided ethnically, but similar religiously.

Likewise remember how complicated things were in Bosnia?

Anyways, the "main" grups are still Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. If only the UK had properly divided the country all those years ago......

MSD

If you call for your peoole to boycott an election, you have no right to complain about the legitimacy of that election due to low turnout among your followers. I assumed that this is what would happen, and it did happen exactly like I expected. Maybe they would have gotten more favorable (to them) results if they has encouraged all Sunnis to vote.

meepa

Just for kicks I'd like to mention something that this reminded me of. In American history, when supporters of a new, stornger central government convened in the Constitutional Convention, they were all just that: supporters. Any figure who was expressly against the convention and going against the Articles of the Confederation did not participate. The reason being was that if they had gone, even to voice their dissent, it would have still been like lending a kind of credibility to the whole process by participating in the first place. By not going, they were trying to give the image that it was all shenanigans to circumvent the laws of the Articles. After the Convention was complete and it was up for ratification, you'll know all those who didn't participate were WTFing at that strategy.

jorgelito

That is hilarious meepa! do you have an article or reference? I have a history teacher who would get a great kick out of that. Thanks for sharing!

Mephisto2

Erm... the locke that started the thread. :-)


Mr Mephisto

jorgelito

*slaps forehead*

You know, I just figured that out hehehe...I thought you were referring to John Locke (So you can see why the quote sounded odd).

I think I need a time out.

Let me go check out Tilted Humor for a bit....

daswig

Well, it's good to see that the Sunni are taking a page from the far-left Democratic playbook...