As near as facts can be ascertained on this matter, I’d like to hear from people who can shed some light on the results of the election in Iraq — results which may bring to a head the simmering tensions threatening to tear the state apart.
According to this article in the Washington Post, a rejectionist coalition of parties who together won an estimated 80 seats in the 275-seat National Assembly are threatening to boycott the new parliament and, implicitly at least, to support armed opposition.
As you know, the unofficial election results show an overwhelming win for Shia’ religious parties. And pretty much everyone seems to be claiming that the elections were marred by widespread fraud.
So, my question is: Is there any reason to believe that there was a level of fraud in the election sufficient to make a meaningful difference in the results? Or is this just sour grapes? On first blush at least the results seem like the result of the fact the Shia’ make up the majority of Iraqis and are perhaps better organized; and the Sunnis’ electoral representation was diminished by their lack of participation in the last two elections. But perhaps there was widespread fraud.
Either way, there’s no real way to get a handle on what’s happening without some relatively independent analysis of whether these allegations of fraud are legitimate.
And by legitimate, I mean, not just any evidence of fraud, but fraud widespread and systematic enough to have measurably affected the result. (Any fledgling democracy will have some fraud in its early elections.)
Anyone have a good answer?
