Iraqis Vote on Constitution

Charter Appears to Have Passed, But Challenges Remain

Voter turnout was high in Saturday's constitutional referendum in Iraq and, with the count still in progress, the document appears to have passed. The next step is for Iraqis to vote in a new National Assembly in December to replace the current interim government. What will the passage of the new constitution mean for Sunnis who voted against it? What does this political development mean for the insurgency, and for the status of U.S. troops in Iraq?

washingtonpost.com staff writer Jefferson Morley was online Monday, Oct. 17, at noon ET to discuss Saturday's vote on Iraq's draft constitution.

The transcript follows.

Read the latest from Morley's World Opinion Roundup blog: Mideast Media Link Constitution, U.S. withdrawal.

____________________

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: What have the international observers said about the vote? I'd love to see Iraq make some progress towards "peace, order, and good government" as we Canadians describe the purpose of government, but I cannot see that happening unless the vast majority of Iraqis see the results as legitimate. And I cannot help but remember that the results of the past two presidential elections in the United States were controversial, and that much of the official information American officials have provided about Iraq has proved to be false. With the stakes so high, the temptation to colour the results of a close vote must also be very high.

If a sizable portion of Iraqi society doubts the veracity of the result I cannot see the referendum accomplishing much towards the positive outcome we all hope for.

Jefferson Morley: I haven't seen what the international observers have said. Most media reports have stressed that Iraqi was unusually peaceful on Saturday. The formal assessments of voting procedures will show just how widely the writ of the Iraqi government extends.

_______________________

Jefferson Morley: A belated welcome. Technical difficulties slowed the beginning of the discussion. My apologies.

On to more questions.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: You must feel awful about the additional vindication of President Bush's Iraq policy that the vote represents. My question is - be honest now! - what were you hoping would happen? Unified Sunni opposition? Major insurgent attacks? The Constitution to go down in flames?

Jefferson Morley: My posting today talked about how the Anglo-American impulse to view Iraq in the rearview mirror is not really shared in the region. While Americans, you included, want to talk about Iraq's referendum as a referendum of President Bush's policy, commentators closer to the scene don't share that desire.

In their positive response to the approval of the constitution, they talk about two things: Iraqi self-determination and ending the U.S. occupation. The Bush administration tends to talk about the former and not the latter. So the notion that Iraq's constitutional referendum is "additional vindication" of a deeply unpopular occupation is, shall we say, Washington-centric.

In a slightly larger perspective, the notion that the Bush policy has been vindicated verges on ludicrous. The primary justification for the war, as articulated by Colin Powell, in his U.N. speech of Feb. 2003, has been proven to be wholly without factual foundation. Powell himself admits that the speech is "stain" on his reputation. The invasion was based on a false premise.

The Judy Miller claim that "everybody was wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is pure blarney. There were plenty of people of who said Saddam Hussein had no capability of developing nuclear weapons, despite claims that the "smoking gun" proof might turn out to be a mushroom cloud. Iraq's nuclear threat was entirely in the imagination of the dictator and those who imagined that Iraq would soon be a secular democracy.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Jefferson,

Great column today.

It is unsurprising that the Iranians are ecstatic at the news of the passage of the draft constitution. They seem to have the most to gain out of a weak Iraqi state with the richest portion of it heavily influenced by the likes of SCIRI and the Badr Brigades (Iranian proxies that control an effective majority in the Iraqi Congress).

Are we at the point now where Iranian control over the Persian Gulf is a fait accompli and that the result of this war has been the creation of a Persian great power? It appears that they have been the primary beneficiaries of our policies and the sooner we come to the recognition of this and act in accordance with new realities, the sooner the region will arrive at political equilibrium.

As uncomfortable as it may seem, Vladimir Putin may be right.

Jefferson Morley: The ascendancy of Iran in the emerging political order of the region is fast becoming a central story line of the Iraqi war/occupation. Sunni-led U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan are especially concerned. You see these concerns increasingly explicit in their media.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: With two of the provinces defeating the draft proposal by as much as 80% and two others barely missing the 2/3's "no" vote with over 60%, it appears the Sunnis are clearly against this and view it as a direct threat. Even before the process started, analysts predicted that the loss of confidence in the process resultant from a failure of a Sunni veto would be more likely to fuel the insurgency than a defeat of the draft itself.

How does this result bode for the future of the current civil war? It appears to me at least that it worsens the situation significantly.

Jefferson Morley: One of the most hopeful aspects of the approval of the constitution is the last-minute provision, probably unknown to many voters, that enables the constitution to be more easily changed in the future.

This provision gives hope to Sunnis who want to participate peacefully in the country's political life and who object to a constitution written under the auspices of a foreign power.

The question is whether the Shiite and Kurdish political parties will want to compromise the political advantages they have already achieved. If the Sunnis can deliver a reduction in violence, they might.

That's a big if.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Does this new constitution allow the Arab-occupied Kurds to vote for independence and separate from Iraq if they so choose?

Jefferson Morley: No. The constitution formalizes their autonomy they have enjoyed since 1991 and installs Kurdish as an official language in Kurdish regions.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: The turnout in Nineveh in last January's elections was a measly 14% --only Anbar's turnout was lower. One would think this is indicative of a large Sunni Arab population. How could Nineveh have voted so solidly on behalf of the constitution? Did the inability of a large number of polling cites (in Nineveh) to open contribute to the referendum's success?

Jefferson Morley: The inability of the government to open polling stations in areas where the insurgents are strongest surely held down the "no" votes.

_______________________

Oviedo, Spain: Comment: I think that the shortest way to the peace and prosperity in Iraq would have been negotiation (pressure) and cooperation. War usually ends when the opponent is defeated and there are many opponents alive in Iraq; and now, some politics in the U.S., are talking about Iran in the same terms than they did before the Iraq war. They must be blind and deaf. I wonder if somebody in the U.S. really thinks that they are working for the peace in the globe. Thanks

Jefferson Morley: You're welcome

_______________________

Windsor Mill, Md.: Is it true that the constitution only had to be approved by 1/3 of the voters? If the U.S. set up the rules is that how the Bush administration would like to see our constitutional system function?

Jefferson Morley: No. If the constitution had been rejected by 2/3 of voters in any THREE of Iraq's 18 provinces, it would have been rejected. It appears that the 2/3 of voters opposed the draft constitution in only TWO of the 18 provinces. Therefore, it looks like the constitution has been approved.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: The region of Nineveh certainly was the dark horse of the constitutional vote, with 76.6 percent of the population approving the constitution. Do you know why this area had so strongly supported the constitution, when many people thought that it would vote against it?

Also, an independent Sunni member of parliament has said that independent monitors had made conflicting conclusions regarding the outcome of the vote. Any idea who these independent monitors are, and who, by the way, were the official monitors or vote counters?

Jefferson Morley: Its a good question. The best explanation I can give without hearing from the observers on the ground is that the Sunni parties were divided three ways, with some favoring the constitution; some advocating a "no" vote, and some advocating a boycott. The government's inability to open voting stations in areas where the insurgents are strong may have also held down turnout in areas that might have registered more "no" votes.

_______________________

Tysons Corner, Va.: I don't recall who wrote yesterday's above-the-fold story about the Iraq elections, but the lead was the huge Sunni turnout, and the obvious tone of the piece was that those who thought the Constitution would pass were in for a nasty surprise.

The article noted that Sunnis had gone door-to-door, telling people they wouldn't commit terrorism and that therefore Sunnis should go vote. Presumably, these Sunnis would vote the Constitution down.

About three-quarters of the way through the piece, a paragraph begins, "Not all Sunnis voted against the Constitution."

And, clearly, based on what we now know, not all Sunnis DID vote against it. In fact, in two of the four Sunni-heavy provinces, the vote was overwhelmingly IN FAVOR of the Constitution.

Given that everyone who reads analysis of Iraq KNEW that two provinces would vote the Constitution down, but two likely wouldn't, why did the story lead with the large Sunni turnout in those two areas? Even if the turnout there was larger than expected, it wouldn't change the outcome.

Here's what I'm getting at. The Post has done a good job reporting on the ground in Iraq, but the final product sure does seem slanted, almost as if it's rooting against the Constitutional referendum. I don't expect triumphalism as an alternative approach, but the story so minimized the reality of what actually took place that I can't help but be very disappointed in yesterday's story.

Jefferson Morley: I don't know what story you're talking about and since you can't identify the author I don't think you know what story your talking about.

As for the "obvious" tone, I think that may be more the product of your own interpretation than any actual words that a Post reporter wrote. (You don't actually quote any words so it's hard to tell.)

My reading of the initial stories about the high Sunni turnout was that it was the most newsworthy aspect and that it was something that the Bush administration, not war critics, especially wanted to emphasize.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: It's funny how Clinton bragged about "nation building" but did nothing; whereas Bush is actually doing it. Yet the Libs in the press focus on the negative, as if the expansion of democracy is a bad thing.

Merely having a Constitutional vote in Iraq is a major victory for Bush. But the Main Stream Media can't bring themselves to admit it, instead they bash Bush to the point where Al Qaeda is now their biggest ally.

Sure, there are difficulties in Iraq. But the difficulties simply make the progress we've made that much more amazing. Bush has accomplished something that Clinton was never even capable of accomplishing. The media Bush-Bashing is just sour grapes!

Jefferson Morley: Those darn capital L liberals. They're the ones who are messing up Iraq?

The problem with the argument that Bush's policy has done wonders for Iraq and only a perverse few deadenders in the United States don't get it, is belied by reading the Iraqi press.

Do any Iraqis write of their gratitude to the American president? No. That's a sentiment virtually unheard of the free Iraqi press and unheard of among Iraqis on the street, at least outside of Kurdistan. Among Kurds, about a fifth of the population, there is widespread admiration and support for the United States.

There are a handful of bloggers who are outspoken in praise of the United States. There's plenty who are harshly critical. In any case, English-speaking Iraqis with access to computers are not representative of the nation as a whole.

Do Iraqis interviewed at random praise the U.S. government for effective nation building? No. The electricity is on less often now in Baghdad than it was two years ago. Life is far, far more dangerous. Child malnutrition is up. Many thousands of civilians have been killed by U.S. forces. Untold numbers have been detained without charges. Some fraction of those have been tortured or mistreated.

If you don't want to listen to the dreaded Liberals, please don't. But if you care about Iraqis, then have the decency to listen to what they're actually saying. They are far less worshipful of our president than you are.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Dear Mr. Morley:

Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan mentions in his blog today that he has heard reports of ballot stuffing in Nineveh province/Mosul. Have you heard or seen any reports of voting irregularities or ballot stuffing that would back up his assertion?

Jefferson Morley: I have not. There were early reports from Sunni spokesman saying that the constitution had been rejected, followed by assertions from U.S. officials that it had passed. I stress that the constitution has "apparently" passed because there is a lot we still don't know.

_______________________

San Antonio, Tex.: Today you wrote:

"The constitution is seen not as a vindication of Bush administration policy in Iraq, but rather the most readily apparent way out of the current mess for Iraqis."

Do you see this as an attempt by Iraqis to create their own exit strategy for U.S. troops? You mention Iraq streets were quiet. Wasn't this in large part because all vehicular traffic was banned?

Also, in one of your chats several months ago, you said that you thought the Downing Street Memos were like a slow-burning peat bog fire. Do you still feel that way?

Jefferson Morley: Yes. I think for a lot of Iraqis, fearful of terrorism and offended by foreign domination, the constitution is seen as the best way of reducing strife and getting the United States to leave.

Surely, the security measures contributed to the calm. With no vehicular traffic, there could be no suicide bombers.

On DSM, I don't recall using the peat bog metaphor but have been disappointed by the Downing Street Memo follow-up. We still don't know who in the Bush administration attended the meetings that gave the British intelligence chief the impression that the administration was seeking to "fix" the intelligence to suit the policy of going to war.

_______________________

Neutral: Mr. Morley: In an earlier discussion (probably in July or so) I had posted a comment stating how the administration policies are coming to fruition and the American public will judge whether they really like the results or not.

The current drop in support for the President is more driven by external forces (gas, Katrina etc.) rather than policies implemented so far. I think the actual jury is still out on the result of admin. policies. Would you agree?

P.S. As a reminder - I claim to be neutral as a foreigner residing in the U.S. for a short time.

Jefferson Morley: I don't think you can make a hard and fast distinction between policies and external forces. Part of the reason that the public response to the administration's handling of Katrina was that its policies neglected the safety of the people, despite abundant warning, and turned over emergency management to incompetent cronies. In this sense, Katrina was less an "external" factor, than a policy (or set of policies) that came to literally disastrous fruition.

_______________________

Columbia, S.C.: Why would the opening of polling stations in any area change the voting patterns? Were the yes voters more committed than those that opposed the Constitution?

Jefferson Morley: In this way. If there's no polling station in area where the insurgency is strong and the opposition to the U.S.-backed government is high, then a population of people more inclined to vote "no" than the rest of the population couldn't cast votes. Its not that "yes" voters were more committed, only that they live in more peaceful areas and thus had fewer obstacles in the way of voting.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: "In a slightly larger perspective, the notion that the Bush policy has been vindicated verges on ludicrous."

This may or may not be true, but it is entirely a political statement. Many of would like to see some good come of all this but have not the strong interest in protecting or attacking the President. What should we want to see as progress?

And do you maintain that Iraq would never become a threat after sanctions were removed? If that is true, what were all the weapons experts doing in Iraq? Saddam's fantasies? But why should we dismiss them while not dismissing Bush's fantasies?

Jefferson Morley: Good questions. I don't think anybody disagrees on what progress would be: a more peaceful and democratic country. The way to achieve that is to figure out a way to remove U.S. troops, not because American power is bad, but because there will always be a violent opposition to attempted foreign domination. Whatever benefit of the doubt Americans might have enjoyed for removing the heinous Saddam Hussein has been forfeited by the administration's false statements, failure to think about the security of the average Iraqi, and the killing, torture and abuse of too many Iraqi civilians. Like many people, I don't have any specific plan for how to get out of Iraq. It is an immensely complicated proposition that has barely begun to get the consideration it deserves.

As for Saddam, I did not dismiss his fantasies. Yes, he probably would have become a threat and yes, international action was necessary to make sure he didn't become a threat. My point is one that no one disputes: Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to the United States in 2003. There was no need to go to war at that moment. There was time to mobilize more international support for intrusive inspections to make sure he never became a threat.

_______________________

Columbia, S.C.: How can the vote on Saturday be portrayed as anything but a huge win for Democracy and this administration? The Sunnis voted in large numbers and it appears that two of the Sunni provinces will ratify the Constitution. Even with an attack on the power structure of Baghdad on the eve of the vote the Iraqis were not intimidated.

Jefferson Morley: Its hard to interpret the apparent approval of the constitution as a "huge win" for Democracy and President Bush because the reality of the country remains so troubled, violent and problematic. One could equally plausibly interpret the vote as a "huge win" for Shiite theocracy and Iran. The vote in fact, advanced the goals of democracy AND Shiite Theocracy, of the Bush administration AND Iran. Iraq is not simple.

_______________________

Ascendant Iran: Does the ascendancy of Iran explain why the Russians and Chinese are downright conciliatory when it comes to dealing with Tehran now? They appear to have a much better handle on the new reality than either the US or Western Europe. Treating them like a great power (complete with nuclear weapons) looks like the track they are taking in the hopes that warmer relations between them will result in more favorable energy contracts.

Jefferson Morley: Not necessarily. Russia and China have their own reasons for diverging from U.S. policy toward Iran, aside from Iran's growing strength. Russia has an economic stake in Iran's nuclear industry and no desire for instability. China wants access to Iran's energy supplies. And both Russia and China don't want to abet the United States' status as the only superpower. If Iran gets a little stronger along the way, they don't mind. But its not driving their policies.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Prince Faisel got in some trouble a couple of weeks ago for mentioning the elephant in the room. That being that the current U.S. policy in Iraq is effectively handing the country over to the Iranians on a silver platter. You mention that this has been a huge concern among Sunni Arab countries in the region. Why has this not managed to grace the American press?

Considering the Sunni Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan...) spent billions in aid propping up Saddam Hussein to keep the Persians at bay, it would seem they have much to fear from Iranian control of the Gulf and every motivation now to support the insurgency.

Jefferson Morley: Thanks Detroit. You're right. I've talking about the Iran Factor a lot in the blog over the past six weeks. The press doesn't pick up on it because the White House doesn't talk about it.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Comment: I do think the comment in the Daily Telegraph was right in stating that those on the right are too quick to trumpet minor successes while those on the left are too quick to look for failure. In any of the event, hopefully what might come from this vote is an example that will make it harder for others in the long term in Middle East to ignore having real votes/elections.

Jefferson Morley: Hear, hear. Tx for your comment.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: Isn't it true that the situation in Iraq will be decided by the "Facts on the Ground," not by pieces of paper or a bogus government? By "Facts on the Ground" I mean economic facts like electricity, jobs, schools, gasoline, etc. and geopolitical facts like the southern border of Kurdistan and Kirkuk and Mosul, and who rules of Baghdad and the rights of women and the composition of the police force in Basra, etc.

Jefferson Morley: Well, facts on the ground are important. So are constitutions. Its not a matter of one or the other.

The key to a constitution working is that it embody and articulate the rules, beliefs and practices of a voluntary, peaceful political order.

_______________________

Jefferson Morley: Well, we are out of time. Thanks for the discussion.

You can always find the latest in international media coverage and commentary of the news at:

World Opinion Roundup

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.