If I was a blogger, I’d feel duty bound to comment on Elliot Abrams spurious claim in today’s NY Times that Iran’s election is a sham because the Supreme Leader makes the real decisions and unelected bodies can and do disqualify candidates, while Lebanon’s is supposedly the purest expression of democracy (which, we all know, Elliot would never have said if the U.S.-backed government had lost).
Of course this is just Elliott Abrams (literally) repeating the AIPAC talking points of the day, but still, it’s worth noting the following: Lebanon’s system gives everyone a vote, but not an equal one — in fact, a Christian vote is, in reality, worth about 1.5 Muslim votes, and among Muslim voters, a Shi’ite vote is worth about half of what a Sunni vote is. That’s because voting occurs according to sect, with seats allocated according to a formula based on the 1936 population census. Back then, Christians were supposedly 50% of the population, and half the seats in parliament are reserved for them, further allocated on the basis of the relative size of Maronites, Orthodox, Armenians etc. Muslims are also awarded 50% of the seats, with Shi’ite and Sunni awarded the same number of seats, and a small bloc for the Druze. The political contest in Lebanon occurs within those strictures — rival parties running for the Sunni vote, or the various sections of the Christian vote etc, but the allocation of seats according to sect is set in stone. The point, of course, is that the 1936 population statistics are no longer valid — Muslims are close to 70% of the entire population, and Shiites alone make up almost half of the total population. Hizballah and its allies easily claimed the majority of the popular vote in last weekend’s election; it was only the archaic allocation of seats that kept the government in power. And the takeaway message from the result was that Christian voters chose to vote against Michel Aoun, Hizballah’s Christian ally.
As for Abrams’ claims about Iran, I think the repudiation will be the scale of the turnout. After all, Iranians who share his “a pox on all their houses” outlook would do the logical thing and boycott the polls. The uncomfortable thing for all the neocons is that the election is making nonsense of the “regime-change” argument.
Both Iran and Lebanon are imperfect democracies (to put it charitably), but Abrams appears to want to hang on to the illusion that democracy in the Middle East will produce an endorsement of Bush-approved “moderates” while repudiating Iran-backed “radicals”…
This I’d point out, if I was a blogger… Yabadaba-dabadaba-dabadee…
We eliminate candidates here in the US too – through corporate donations and the lock that the Dems/Ruplicans have on drawing voting district boundary lines – which is why most Americans will never know that we have a third or fourth party candidate for president.
I haven’t visited Tony’s site in months… maybe even a year or two. But as I return to take this peek it’s clear he is one of the best analyst this country has yet to discover. And until it does, we will be stuck with the same nonsense that is currently swirling around the Iranian elections.
I commented before that Iran wants RESPECT most of all. I truly believe that.
Yeah, their election might have been completely corrupt or incompetently managed.
But it wouldn’t matter.
At the end of the day Iran would have pursued – if not today then in the future – nukes for one reason: RESPECT.
LOOK AROUND. Everyone who has nukes can run elections the way they want and NO ONE from the outside world is going to say BOO.
LOOK AROUND. A U.S. ally runs a crappy election and we say, “it’s an internal matter. Let them deal with it as they see fit.”
The Iranians aren’t stupid. They know that the U.S. will NEVER respect them. They know that the moment Obama leaves office – be that in eight years or four years or sooner – the U.S. is still going to crap on Iran.
So who in their right mind wouldn’t pursue the RESPECT that nukes bring.
“LOOK AROUND. Everyone who has nukes can run elections the way they want and NO ONE from the outside world is going to say BOO.”
What about Pakistan? Nuclear country, but even the Bush admin spoke out against Musharraf’s abuses.
“LOOK AROUND. A U.S. ally runs a crappy election and we say, “it’s an internal matter. Let them deal with it as they see fit.”
Like in Honduras? The military is backed by the U.S., but we condemned the coup anyways. I know neither of these are elections, but it still fits.
In a way, it would be nice if Iran knew there would be no American regime change. That would lead to regime change from the inside.
Ahmadinejad wone the election fare and square. Moussavi is just a Mosssad plant designed to cause unrest and confusion in Iran. The sooner, you Tony, expose this fact in Newsweek, the quicker we can get to reconiciliations with Iran. If Iran demands reparations for the damage to the economy that the US/Israel inspired Moussavi mossadists cause, it would be well within their right
At the end of the day Iran would have pursued – if not today then in the future – nukes for one reason: RESPECT.
Like in Honduras? The military is backed by the U.S., but we condemned the coup anyways. I know neither of these are elections, but it still fits.
best prices black friday 2011
if you want to see the good parents go and see iaresl and of course see u.s.a which make pease in iraq afganestan and the most important in iaresl by giving them the enough weapon to kill children.ofcourse you want us to learn our children how to say hi to iaresl & usa while they are killing him /this is the ideology of crazy human.think so u see good
qtsq.com
If you want to grow your experience just keep visiting this web site and be updated with the latest news posted here.|