Why Iraq enjoys a calm election

A relative lack of violence before the Oct. 10 vote signals a small victory for Iraqi youth who rose up against a corrupt and violent political elite.

AP
Employees of the Independent High Electoral Commission close a polling center after the end of early voting by the security forces in Baghdad, Iraq, Oct. 8.

Last year, violence marred more than half of the world’s national elections, the highest rate in four decades. This past Jan. 6, the United States saw its own election-related violence with the invasion of the Capitol by pro-Trump activists. Yet in Iraq, a country where the U.S. planted democracy, an election on Oct. 10 has seen little violence in the final weeks before the vote. That’s quite a change from the violence of the four previous elections since the 2003 U.S. invasion.

The reasons for this progress are complex, but perhaps the strongest one is that young Iraqis rose up in 2019 to protest years of violent conflict and government corruption. In response, Iran-backed militias and the government killed hundreds of pro-democracy activists. But the movement did result in a new and reformist prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi. And it also led to a major shift in how elections are held.

Under Mr. Kadhimi, the elections for parliament are being held early to meet the protesters’ demand. He has also beefed up security for the vote. The number of voting districts has been increased, putting a focus on independent candidates rather than on parties.

Polling stations will have five times as many foreign monitors as in the 2018 elections. Voters were given biometric voting cards to curb fraud. Political parties and candidates were asked to sign a pledge to reject intolerance and violence during the campaigning and voting.

Many Iraqis have emphasized the need for these elections “in order to move from a prolonged political standstill to finally addressing the urgent challenges facing Iraq,” says Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the United Nations representative to Iraq. According to a poll by the Al-Bayan Center for Planning and Studies in Baghdad, more than half of young Iraqis will not be voting for the same party or candidate as they did three years ago.

“If the balloting unfolds in a free and fair manner, without major violence, it may restore a degree of confidence in electoral democracy,” states the International Crisis Group in a report. And, according to Reuters, “Violent sectarianism is less of a feature and security is better than it has been for years.”

Iraq remains a nation fractured by tribes, religion, and ethnicity. Yet its young people, who voiced a demand for government to rise above those divisions, may be setting a new social contract. The relative lack of preelection violence is a sign that they are being heard.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.