Relations Between the US and Shia Street in Iraq

[Ramo]

The dynamics of the situation are changing pretty rapidly.

The primary religious bigwig of Shia Iraq, who holds a huge amount of influence in public opinion, Grand Ayatollah Sistani has come out in strong opposition to the decidedly undemocratic character of the provisional assembly to be created next year (the only people who get to vote are tribal leaders and other local powerbrokers). He's almost forced the occupation authority into backtracking on the election plan. He's given the occupation authority about a year for significant steps towards democracy till he'll advocate any rash resistance. A good summary of the Sistanti situation:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/7446521.htm

Sistani's main rival, the hothead cleric al-Sadr (son of the murdered former Grand Ayatollah), has been characteristically stirring up a ruckus with this ammo. He's more of the Iranian-style Shia Islamist. His milita (which BTW, we just had the bright idea to use as a paramilitary force ) was even trained by Iran. And there have been clashes intermittently between the Sadrists and the occupation authorities these past months. In fact, in East Baghdad (Sadr country), there was a large demonstration a couple days ago regarding a cleric supposedly killed by a US tank.

But anyways, several day's ago he's threatened a general strike to occur in a few months - to coincide with the anniversary of his father's death. And with his large amount of support (much less than Sistani, but still it's estimated about ~1/3 of the Shia) could very easily cripple large parts of Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Dec5.html .

It'll be interesting how this all plays out. Probably not pretty, but interesting.

[Q Classic]

not as interesting as the sco-ibm flap.

[Ramo]

No thread-jacking, else I'll cut off your hands!

[DeathByTheSword]

so if i am reading this right...everone in Iraq that has any power doesnt want a democracy...so WOW that was unexpected...wondering how it is going in Afganistan......

[Ramo]

It's more complicated than that. Kurdish, female, etc. members of the IGC have partially opposed Sistani's suggestion of one-person one-vote because of worries that rights for women and ethnic and religious minorites might be trampled upon. Of course, backing a plan that puts local notables in position to dictate the terms is not a solution at all.

[Dinner]

The constitutional convention is the one where only key leaders would be allowed to take part but once the constitution is layed out there would be general elections where everyone would be allowed to vote. It's pretty standard fair in just about every country that the elites design the lay out of the government. That's what happened in the US, France, and just about every other democracy on Earth so it is more then a little dishonest to claim it's not democratic.

Personally, I believe so many muslim Clerics are against the Constitutional convention because they are afraid the state and religion will be seporated which doesn't hold to their desire for an Islamic state.

[Ned]

Ramo, in principle, I agree with the Shi'ite leader. The problem we face is that there is no constitution and Shi'ite majority rule could turn into Shi'ite despotism over the other Iraqi tribes and interests.

Even so, I say, let's hold elections.

[Ramo]

The constitutional convention is the one where only key leaders would be allowed to take part but once the constitution is layed out there would be general elections where everyone would be allowed to vote.

This is not the constitutional convention. It's a gov't to replace the IGC when the US leaves. The Constitution won't be created until a year after this assembly forms, assuming there are no delays.

It's pretty standard fair in just about every country that the elites design the lay out of the government. That's what happened in the US,

Yes, damn straight the creation of the current US gov't wasn't a democratic process. And of course the oldest republic in the world wouldn't have been created democratically. And after its creation, there wasn't universal suffrage. There wasn't even universal white male suffrage.

France,

Which French gov't? The Fifth Republic? I'd be very suprised if its Constitutional convention had no elected representatives.

and just about every other democracy on Earth

I doubt that assertion, but I'd rather not threadjack with this irrelevancy.

so it is more then a little dishonest to claim it's not democratic.

Let's see. The Assembly isn't democratically elected, thus it's not democratic. Quite simple. It's kind of sad that an Islamic Ayatollah can understand the concept better than you.

Personally, I believe so many muslim Clerics are against the Constitutional convention because they are afraid the state and religion will be seporated which doesn't hold to their desire for an Islamic state.

Sistani, who holds the most sway in the country, is only mildly Islamist. Which is roughly the common sentiment in the country. He's not for an Iran-style gov't. Sadr is the real Islamist.

Actually, it's a reflection of the popular opinion of the Shia. They were ****ed over when the Brits created their gov't and put the Sunni's in charge. So they want to guarantee their equality with their majority.

The problem we face is that there is no constitution and Shi'ite majority rule could turn into Shi'ite despotism over the other Iraqi tribes and interests.

Shia is a religion, a sect of Islam, not a "tribe."

[Ramo]

Robert Wright of the WP argues going against democracy in the new provisional assembly if a ****-up on our part:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61200-2003Dec12.html

Now that Saddam is detained, it'll be interesting if the Shia are going to be emboldened and become politically active, now that symbolically, the danger of Saddam coming back is gone. They could very easily make Bremer's life a living hell. Or worse if more flock to Sadr's school of thought than Sistani's.