(from Blithering Bunny)
This excellent leader column from The Telegraph sums it all up really:
Compare yesterday’s reports with those by the same commentators during South Africa’s first democratic election. Then, too, there were many technical problems: electors who were not properly registered, voter intimidation, long queues. But these things were set in their proper context, as the backdrop against which the moving drama of people casting their first ballots was being played out. No one suggested that the clashes between IFP and ANC supporters in Zululand undermined the whole process. No one argued that the backlash by a handful of black homeland chieftains and Boer irreconcilables made South Africa unfit for democracy.
Looking to hang their doubts on something specific, the cynics focus on the ejection of the Sunni Arabs from their traditionally dominant position, and the prospect of a permanent Shia majority. There is plainly some truth in this analysis. A combination of sulkiness and intimidation has led to large-scale abstentions among those who prospered most under the old regime: Saddam’s townsmen in Tikrit, for example, seem largely to have stayed at home. Meanwhile, the Shias, sensing that they may be the masters now, have flocked to the polls in huge numbers. None of this, though, is an argument against conducting a ballot. To return to our earlier parallel, no one contended that the likelihood of a permanent ANC majority – or, to make the analogy more precise, a permanent black majority – invalidated the concept of South African democracy. No one wrote sympathetic pieces about the plight of the Afrikaners as they lost their hegemony.
Yes, and on BBC broadcasts South Africa continually gets a free pass when it comes to their crime figures. Their savage murder rate plus incredible numbers of shootings, rapes and carjackings draw little or no coverage. When apartheid was ended there were 4,000 political murders • compare that figure with the terrorism in Iraq.
Of course, some cases in SA do catch the Beeb’s attention. A white farmer with two black accomplices who allegedly murdered an ex-employee gets coverage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4201909.stm
The ongoing slaughter of farmers in SA (many of them white), purportedly the sector of SA society with the highest murder rate, mostly goes unreported:
http://tinyurl.com/5xp9e
This is a sad, sad day for Leftist everywhere. Once again the Iraqi people have failed them; first they refused to fight to the death in defense of their native tyrant and now they embrace nasty ‘imperialist’ western democracy.
The sour grapes flooding the ‘fruited plain’ are delicious to hear. 😀
Surely the conversion of South Africa to true democracy was a victory for cheese eating surrender monkey style long term political pressure. I don’t remember spending billions invading them at vast cost to life and infrastructure.
Obviously Iraq is different as Saddam appeared unlikely to submit to sanctions (especially given the apparant corruption within the UN scheme) but that merely invalidates the comparison.
If the electoral process ultimately produces a stable government with non homicidal and independent policies, especially if it encourages other regional states to follow, then subject to a CBA I’ll be a convert. Until then the jury remains out.
Misc notes for airbrush lovers:
After failing to notice the US and Australian troops organizing earthquake relief on the ground in Indonesia and the entire US carrier and marine amphibious battle groups working hard offshore, the BBC is now faced with appalling news from Iraq. Clean up at the MinistryofTruth is already underway: nixing all shots of jubilant Iraqis at the polls, Iraq now fades from the screen as the BBC switches to canned anti-Americanism coverage of (hold me back) Michael Jackson, spiced w/ daily platitudes from Dermott and Natasha about global warming.
For your next quiz night at the pub:
Q: How many UN “observers” were in Iraq for the election?
A: 25, all in Baghdad
Q: How many EU “observers” were in Iraq for the election?
A: Zero
Q: Who said the election was a “triumph for the international community”?
A: The grande grenouille himself, Chirac
Meanwhile, brace for Michael Moore/Sid Blumenthal appearances with R Cook for “context” about
Meanwhile, brace for Michael Moore/Sid Blumenthal appearances with R Cook for “context” about Bush’s State of the Union speech coming Wed.
“Surely the conversion of South Africa to true democracy was a victory for cheese eating surrender monkey style long term political pressure.”
Well, if that is the case it makes me wonder why Mr. Mbeki isn’t willing to use such “tried and tested” methods (like sanctions) on his neighbour Mr. Mugabe.
In my view the collapse of the Soviet bloc brought about a realisation in the apartheid regime that their usefulness as an anti-communist state in Africa was coming to an end and that they had to wise up fast.
Coincidence how Mr. Mandela was released from jail so soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
>Surely the conversion of South Africa to true democracy was a victory for cheese eating surrender monkey style long term political pressure. I don’t remember spending billions invading them at vast cost to life and infrastructure.
>
>Obviously Iraq is different as Saddam appeared unlikely to submit to sanctions (especially given the apparant corruption within the UN scheme) but that merely invalidates the comparison.
Yes, different methods were used to bring down both regimes, as appropriate to each situation (SA, as bad as it was, wasn’t killing and torturing tens of thousands of people and starting two massive wars against their neighbours which killed hundreds of thousands. Nor did anyone think that SA had weapons of mass destruction – unless we count Allan Donald as a WMD).
But I don’t see why this “invalidates the comparison”. They might have got there in different ways, but they both ended up in similar situations, having an election against a backdrop of violence.
(cont).
The media at the time didn’t think this invalidated the SA elections, and all the evidence is that the violence in Iraq has not undermined the Iraq election either, despite what the media implies.
In fact, the leftist media at the time took a fairly patronizing view of the violence in SA – that’s what natives do, you know, no point paying much attention to it, no great political significance in it (despite the fact that politics played a very large part in it).
Whereas, with every act of violence in Iraq, the impression is created that this is understandable because of the “political” concerns the terrorists have.
I don’t think anybody would genuinely claim that the elections in Iraq are ‘invalid’. They have clearly been a tremendous success in themselves. My point was that elections in themselves don’t lead to a happy, wildly sucessful country therefore the ultimate success of our strategy in Iraq is still very much up for grabs – Mbeki’s tolerance of Mugabe goes to show that an elected government isn’t by definition a paragon of virtue.
In South Africa the country got there themselves albeit with much unpleasantness which is still ongoing. In Iraq there is a large bodycount, a vast cost, a highly unpopular occupation and a potential civil war to offset against the benefits thus far.
I’m intrigued to hear that nuclear weapons don’t count as WMD these days though.
I do appreciate the point though that much of the media who celebrated the enfanchisement of SA’s blacks seems curiously reluctant to celebrate the enfranchisement of Iraq’s everybody. When you go to footy you don’t not celebrate a goal because you know there’s still a chance that you might lose in the end.
Michael Gill – re Apartheid and the Berlin Wall and why the former fell just after the latter. I have been convinced of your theory for ages but have never read or seen or heard a proper examination of a relation between the two events. Do you, by any chance, have a source?
>I do appreciate the point though that much of the media who celebrated the enfanchisement of SA’s blacks seems curiously reluctant to celebrate the enfranchisement of Iraq’s everybody. When you go to footy you don’t not celebrate a goal because you know there’s still a chance that you might lose in the end.
Exactly. Well put.
>I’m intrigued to hear that nuclear weapons don’t count as WMD these days though.
No-one thought they posed much of a threat.
>I don’t think anybody would genuinely claim that the elections in Iraq are ‘invalid’.
If only this were true. Some influential left-wing websites, such as Kos, have been openly disparaging. The BBC isn’t able to do so so openly, but their coverage both before and during the election makes it clear that they aren’t too happy about them.
>My point was that elections in themselves don’t lead to a happy, wildly sucessful country
Wildly successful? That’s setting the bar rather high.
>potential civil war
Take it up with Steyn:
—————-
“How lame do you have to be to be the last guy on the planet to do the old “Iraq on the brink of civil war” routine? Just as “the brutal Afghan winter” that was supposed to mire shivering US forces in the graveyard of empire is now one-third of a decade behind schedule, so Iraq has now been “teetering on the brink of civil war” for coming up for two years.
Brink-wise, that’s quite a leisurely teeter. There’s no danger of a “long-running civil war in Iraq”. Instead, we’ve had a long-running hysteria about impending civil war in Iraq.”
—————–
I note that even Fisk says there’s no chance of a civil war in Iraq.
Steyn link:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12107390%5E7583,00.html
I don’t personally give a lot of respect to Steyn’s opinions.
In my view some sort of civil war is a possibility given that Iraq itself is an artificial construct which derived much of its nationalistic fervour from Saddam’s regime. There’s about to be a huge change in the balance of power, there’s enormously valuable raw materials scattered about and presumably the coalition armies won’t be there indefinitely to keep everyone under control – if they are this will result in a different set of issues.
It might well be desirable to split the country into its various ethnic and religious components by non violent means but this would clearly create more problems in terms of secessionist movements elsewhere and distribution of land and resources. Again, no reason to p*ss on the fire of election success but something else to think about before we all run around proclaiming freedom and happiness for eternity.
cockney
Seems to me that there is scope for reasonable autonomy for the differing groups – but within a nation-state of Iraq. Yes, there is a long way to go, but Mark Steyn’s piece in the Telegraph today is a fair slap-down of all the gainsayers who are really wanting a quagmire and a defeat for the coalition.
Anon, do you think this is feasible in the long run given the different priorities of the various ethnic and religious groups? Is this not an Eastern Europe type scenario where division was inevitable once the oppressively strong centralising force was removed? If not why not?
I don’t personally give a lot of respect to Steyn’s opinions.
In my view some sort of civil war is a possibility given that Iraq itself is an artificial construct which derived much of its nationalistic fervour from Saddam’s regime.
So is Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, …….I don’t say your thesis is wrong….just not unique……..Yugoslavia collapsed because Germany sponsored its old client [Catholic] Croatia and the split came along Orthodox/Catholic/Muslim lines………in Iraq we are really talking of flavours of Muslims where exploiting the cleavage poses great threats to Syria, Saudi, Jordan, and Iran where there is a large non-Persian population……
Yugoslavia was not a democracy but a Communist dictatorship no longer receiving the Western $5bn annual subsidy…………I am less sure of Iraq’s breakup than before the elections………
BTW…….the 41% voters who are unrepresented in the British Parliament (2001) might stage an insurrection…
BTW…….the 41% voters who are unrepresented in the British Parliament (2001) might stage an insurrection…
Discuss
Rick | 02.01.05 – 3:13 pm | #
“I have been convinced of your theory for ages but have never read or seen or heard a proper examination of a relation between the two events. Do you, by any chance, have a source?”
I don’t have any specific reference to cite but there must be an article or column somewhere that makes this point • I can’t be the first to think along these lines.
The apartheid regime didn’t have much going for them except they were rabidly anti communist. Neighbouring countries like Mozambique and Angola went communist with Cuban advisors on the ground and Marxist revolutionaries operated in other states. The fear of communist advancement across the continent meant that undesirable regimes (SA, Zaire) had some value to those who feared the Soviet influence there.
Once the Soviet Union imploded those concerned about the spread of communism across Africa surely felt there was no need to tolerate or prop up (either directly or tacitly) these regimes.
Also, contrast the turnout in Iraq with the turnout in the former Yugoslavia’s elections, where in many cases hardly anyone voted.