Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM)

For struggle, Solidarity and Socialism in Nigeria

Committee for a Workers' International

Home

Join DSM

Contact DSM

About us

Our Manifesto

Statements

Socialist Democracy

Newspaper of the DSM

Campaigns

NCP

Trade Unions

Students

Women

International

Downloads

email

Socialist Democracy March - April 2005

An 'election' was conducted on January 30, 2005 in Iraq to elect a "Transitional National Assembly" that will write a new constitution (which will be voted on in a referendum in the autumn) for Iraqis by 15th August, 2005.

This election was one of the strangest in modern history. For fear of being attacked, candidates' names and faces were not known; four out of eighteen electoral provinces (which account for half of the population) were declared as dangerous/unstable for voting to take place; movement within and between towns was restricted while the international electoral monitoring groups/international observers boycotted the election. In fact, the election was more like a preparation for a war with imperialist troops on every street corner!

Contrary to Bush and Blair view that the Iraqi election is a "victory for democracy", situation on ground shows that the election and its outcome will only exacerbate divisions between various ethnic and religious groups, offer a civil war and increase poverty level of the Iraqi people. After the election for instance, insurgency and relentless wave of violence has continued with scores of lives daily lost. In fact, the Iraqi interim government had to close the country's border between 17 and 22 of February as a measure to temporarily manage the problem. Again, Prime Minister Allawi has extended the state of emergency declared about four months ago for another 30days until the end of March. Out of 1,502 US occupational forces casualties, 1,140 deaths were through hostile actions by Iraqis.

Out of the acclaimed 58% turn out, overwhelming majority of Sunni Moslems in central Iraq (who constitute about 20% of the population boycotted the election while there was a high turn outs in Anbar province (cities of Falluja and Ramadi) and Ninevah which includes Mosul respectively.

Historically, the Shias who constitute up to 60% of the population had been an oppressed majority under the Sunni elite dominated political force even under Saddam dictatorship. The Shias therefore participated overwhelmingly in the election as a way to have their turn to dominate with the hope that the US imperialism will leave immediately after the election. Majority of Sunnis viewed the election as a fig leaf for imperialist occupation hence, the boycott while the Kurds massively partook in the election with the objective of being represented in the National Assembly to enshrine their de-facto autonomy/all-out independence in the constitution.

An attempt by the Kurds to include control of Kirkuk, a city near important northern oil fields, in Kurdish autonomous state would provoke resistance by Sunni Arabs in the province and beyond. This would also encourage the Shias in the south to consolidate their control over the southern oil filed. All this poses the question of a civil war between the Shias and the Sunnis which could create instability throughout the Middle East and give terrorists a new, ungoverned region that could be used as a base of operations.

Regardless of the reason for participating or not in the January 30 election, the Iraqis have one thing in common a hatred of the occupying forces and their immediate pull-out.

Again, controversy will ensue in the next few months over an attempt by the Shias to introduce Sharia law in the constitution as the Kurds are poised to oppose it. And again, a constitution emanating from a "National Assembly" without Sunnis impute and cooperation cannot be said to be all embarrassing. Already, since after the election, there have been attacks specifically targeted at Shia civilians, a resultant effect of resentment and alienation of Sunnis. Meanwhile, the Sunnis are minority in Iraq; they are majority in the entire Arab world.

Since after the election, socio-economic situation has not changed for better. There have been a lack of electricity and fuel for transport, lack of clean water, decent food and jobs, etc. It is clear that continuous suffering and frustration will increase the anger and bitterness of the Iraqis towards US imperialism and its occupying forces. It should be noted that the US and British imperialism's singular reason for waging brutal war and occupation of Iraq that have claimed the lives of over 100,000 Iraqis and over 1,502 US troops - possession of Weapon of Mass Destruction - is unfounded. Two years after occupation, WMD is yet to be found in Iraq!

In the absence of strong united workers organisations that can tailor this anger towards a united campaign of national liberalisation which seeks to improve the conditions of the mass working class people, regardless of their ethnic or religious affiliations, the resistance could manifest into chaos and most likely, a civil war.

Elections under imperialist occupation can therefore not solve any of the problems of Iraqi working people. What is required first and foremost is a mass movement of the working class people and oppressed masses across all ethnic divisions that can build a formidable force capable of ending the occupation of Iraq. Having attained this, it would be possible to call for the convening of a constituent assembly of democratically elected delegates to prepare a workers' and poor farmers' government leading to a socialist confederation of Iraq with national and minority rights. Only the establishment of a democratic socialist confederation in Iraq and a democratic socialist federation of the whole region will offer a solution to the endless carnage which imperialism means for all the people of the region.

Through unity in struggle, the occupying forces can be forced out and a movement for a socialist Iraq and socialist federation of Middle East can begin.

Socialist Democracy March - April 2005