Elections in Iraq

Elections in Iraq were a great success — ask any Republican. Never
mind that polling places were kept secret from would-be voters until the last
minute. Never mind that candidates’ names were also secret, or that some people
listed on ballots denied that they were candidates. Never mind that more
than half the people voting thought they were voting for president when, in
fact, they were voting for an assembly to craft a constitution. Never mind the
people killed on election day, or those assassinated during the pre-election
period.

Elections were a great success because, amid the bombs and bullets, people
voted. That is all you need for democracy. People voting — whether
or not they know who or what they are voting for, whether or not their vote
has any chance of actually influencing the policies of their leaders —
voting equals democracy. Ask any Republican.

Those who voted showed
immense courage. Many felt that voting was the only thing they could do
to show that they wanted change — whether that change meant getting rid of
the old government or getting rid of the occupying army.

In 1967, the U.S. government lauded the brave people of [South] Viet Nam for
voting, and predicted that the election turnouts meant the success of democracy
and an imminent end to war. They were wrong. War continued until the "insurgents"
finally drove U.S. forces out of the country and imposed their own dictatorship.

In 1984, the U.S. government lauded the conduct of elections in El Salvador,
hailing the triumph of democracy. They were wrong. War and murder dragged on.
As soldiers of the dictatorship killed Archbishop Romero in 1980, soldiers of
the democratic government murdered the Jesuit priests and their housekeeper
and her daughter in 1989.

So, brave as the Iraqi voters were, we should not forget the lessons of history.
Elections
alone provide neither democracy nor peace.