CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM: Iraq, Venezuela, Florida & Ohio

As I observed the unfolding story of the Iraqi constitutional referendum and the paucity of critical response, I was left wondering if I alone was reminded of the sordid electoral history of the Bush administration.

The emerging story is as full of inexplicable holes as Judy Miller’s forgetful explanation of her conduct in the Plame case. First, accusations of ballot box stuffing were credible enough for Iraqi authorities to acknowledge that the numbers did not conform to international standards for fair elections. The investigation will not cover the critical province of Ninevah. Second, given the attempt to alter the rules of the referendum to assure its passage before the fact, there was clearly reason for concern that it would fail. Third, the early counts reported in the media (a clear and convincing mandate for the constitution) could only be explained by suggesting that the Sunnis voted for the referendum and against their own interests.

I can conceive three explanations for the latter phenomenon (which no one predicted beforehand) and only one passes the stench test: First, the Sunnis were incredibly misinformed to believe that Shiite control, Kurdish autonomy and Sunni subjugation was a desirable form of government. Clearly, this is the least plausible explanation. Alternatively, the Sunnis voted for the referendum knowing that constitutional failure would lead to delay and delay would prolong the occupation. While this may have some logical and Machiavellian appeal, it is doubtful that the Sunnis could have acquired the skills of Karl Rove in such a short time frame. Third and most likely, the ballot box was stuffed and stuffed again to guarantee the result desired by both the interim government and the occupying force.

If the latter explanation is accurate, it comes down to this: After sacrificing two thousand American soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and countless untold casualties of war, the democracy we have bestowed on Iraq is not the democracy of our founders in 1776 (declaring independence from a foreign power). It is not the democracy of 1783 (drafting a constitution on the foundation of a bill of rights); rather, it is the democracy of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.

The critical flaw of our founders was that they did not trust the common people, minorities or women to be a part of the fledgling republic. The problem with the neocon overlords of war, self-proclaimed champions of liberty and conduit of God’s true will, is that they do not trust democracy at all.

They like a fixed game. To wit:

In Florida 2000, with all the chips on the table, the current inhabitants of the White House administered the greatest disenfranchisement of African American citizens since the days of Jim Crow and still they had to fall back on a corrupt Supreme Court.

In 2004, when it all came down to Ohio, Karl Rove and his merry pranksters dusted off the bag of dirty tricks in a determined effort to suppress the black vote. When it appeared it was not enough (remember the exit polls), the fix went in on the electronic ballot box (which conveniently did not leave a paper trail).

They like a fixed game.

As it was in Florida and Ohio, so it is in Iraq. When the attempt to fix the election beforehand backfired in a barrage of unfavorable public opinion, the fix went in on the ballot box in the pivotal province of Ninevah.

Owing to the ineptitude of the opposition party, the pervasive corruption of the two-party system, and the complicity of corporate media, we never learned the full extent of democracy’s betrayal in Florida or Ohio. In the occupied territory of Iraq (can we even call it a nation?), where media is completely marginalized and there is no independent judiciary, it is unlikely the truth will ever emerge. We will be given a set of numbers and the numbers will be shaped to the desired result: a believable victory for the draft constitution.

In America, we disenfranchise undesirable (i.e., black) voters by falsely branding them criminals, by changing polling stations without notification, and by an assortment of other nefarious means. In Iraq, they simply round up the usual suspects (i.e., Sunnis) and detain them until after the election. If they resist, they shoot them down like stray dogs in New Orleans and proclaim another victory in the war for democracy.

The difficulty with foreign lands that we consider less sophisticated than our own is that the people have a sixth sense. They are not conditioned to believe what the government tells them or what the media dutifully reports. They may not fully understand the intricacies of a profoundly flawed legal document but they have a nose for corruption and they will sniff it out.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was first to announce the apparent victory.

Three and a half years ago, Dr. Rice spoke too soon when she signaled American approval of a military coup in Venezuela (the coup was reversed within days). She may have committed the same diplomatic perversity in prematurely pronouncing passage of the Iraqi constitution.

There were no exit polls in Mosul, were there?

Given the rudimentary hand-counting system of Iraqi elections, we were told it could take days or weeks before the ballots were tabulated but, according to the secretary, the results were already in. Perhaps they were in before the first ballot was cast.

When Dr. Rice spoke prematurely on the Venezuelan coup, she inadvertently tipped America’s hand. Our agents were intricately involved in that disgraceful attempt to overthrow a lawfully elected government – just as they were with Jean Bertrand Aristide in Haiti.

To be fair, Dr. Rice did not speak with certainty in her referendum pronouncement. She left room for doubt. She allowed for a safe retreat.

The administration would have been wise to let the chips fall. The defeat of the draft constitution would not have been a crushing blow to the occupation. It might have lent some credibility to the process. Passage of the constitution will hasten the day when a legitimate government is established. That government will most certainly demand an end to the occupation. The only outcome that would most assuredly fuel the fires of insurgency is the perception of a crooked election.

As for the occupation, it is already doomed. It is no longer a question of success or failure – indeed, it never really was. It is a question of how long, how much, and how many more lives will be sacrificed on the altar of a lie. According to a recent poll, fully 82% of Americans believe in a timetable of withdrawal. You do not press on in war with only 18% support.

The president may still intend to transform the Iraq war into a fifty-year battle of civilizations, but he will fail. His trusted advisors are falling like flies on rancid meat. His party is seeking distance. In the end, his will be a portrait of tragedy.

We have had our own referendum on the war and the occupation. The results must bring shock and awe to the overlords of preemptive strike, nuclear proliferation and never-ending war: They have utterly and miserably failed.

The only referendum in Iraq that truly matters is a referendum on the occupation itself: Shall all foreign soldiers withdraw from the nation?

Like Condoleezza Rice, we do not require an official tabulation to announce the result: The occupation must end.

Jazz.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON DISSIDENT VOICE, THE ALBION MONITOR & COUNTERPUNCH.