Will violence stop Iraq elections?

Published on October 4, 2004 By Sally jacobs In Current Events

A car bomb killed at least 16 people and injured more than 50 in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad on Monday.

US leaders and the interim Iraqi government have both insisted elections scheduled for next January will still go ahead, though they may not go ahead in every part of the country.

King Abdullah of Jordan is against this, and says it will be impossible to hold elections in the current state of chaos that is going on there.

So these are the questions that comes to mind....

Can elections be held in Iraq despite the current violence?

Should the elections be held nationwide?

Would it be sufficient to hold them in selective areas until the violence on the ground subsides?

I personally think it will only be possible to hold these elections in certain areas until the violence subsides. I think these elctions should still go ahead, I don't think any time will be the perfect time in the current situation, but it does need to be done. In 1864 at the height of the civil war the USA had an election with only one half of the country participating. One of the greatest USA presidents was re-elected Abraham Lincoln.

Comments

Kermit

on Oct 04, 2004

I'm sorry but this blog should have been about me wtf?!?!

WiseFawn

on Oct 05, 2004

I can't see them being able to hold elections any time soon. It would be different if they just let part of the country decide, wouldn't it? Interesting questions.

Sally jacobs

on Oct 07, 2004

It would be different if they just let part of the country decide, wouldn't it?

I think that's the only way of doing it at the moment, it's not perfect, but what about that situation is perfect?

WiseFawn

on Oct 07, 2004

There is nothing perfect about it, very far from it.
When I saw your question, I was thinking of how it would naturally be the parts with the less violence happening that would get to choose, where it actually should be those people that get to choose above anyone else. I was even thinking of if they decided to let only part of the US vote now. That would be interesting!

Solitair

on Oct 07, 2004

What may be possible is to stagger the elections around the country with a huge military presence moving around with the election. Move into a city with 50,000 troops. Troops on every corner and outside every voting station 2 days before elections. Hold elections. Move out to next city. Continue. may take 3 months, but would ensure that the majority of peopel were free to vote in a safe (if somewhat restricted) environment. They could even go so far as introduce compulsory voting!

Such a solution would be a logistics nightmare and would require plenty of independent overview, but might work.

Paul.

Sally jacobs

on Oct 08, 2004

I was thinking of how it would naturally be the parts with the less violence happening that would get to choose, where it actually should be those people that get to choose above anyone else

You're right WF. Those woth the most violence should get to choose, but they are the ones that would be the most difficult to reach. Unfortunately I don't think it will work.

I was even thinking of if they decided to let only part of the US vote now. That would be interesting!

Very interesting, but I don't think that would be recieved in a positive light at all!

Paul, that would be an excellent idea. Not easy to do, but it would mean the majority had their say. It would just take alot of effort and work, and I'm not sure people are willing to do that.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!