portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts

imperialism & war

Iraqi Democracy Works! 100% vote for Saddam Hussein

Who says Iraqi's don't have democracy?
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Saddam Hussein won another seven-year term as Iraq's president in a referendum in which he was the sole candidate, taking 100 percent of the vote, the Iraqi leader's right-hand man announced Wednesday.

All 11,445,638 of the eligible voters cast ballots, said Izzat Ibrahim, vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council that is Iraq's key decision-making body.

"This is a unique manifestation of democracy which is superior to all other forms of democracies even in these countries which are besieging Iraq and trying to suffocate it," Ibrahim said at a news conference in Baghdad, apparently referring to the United States.

The White House had dismissed the one-man race in advance, and the results seemed to bear out the criticism. To get a vote total at all -- let alone a 100 percent "yes" vote -- Iraqi officials would have had to gather and count millions of paper ballots, some from remote areas far from Baghdad.

"Obviously, it's not a very serious day, not a very serious vote and nobody places any credibility on it," press secretary Ari Fleischer said in Washington on Tuesday as ballots were being cast in Iraq.

Parliament members were expected to go to Saddam sometime Wednesday to administer the oath of office for the new term.

Iraqis in Baghdad could be heard firing in the air in celebration after Ibrahim's announcement of the results in Parliament. The government already had declared the day a national holiday, even before the results.

Clusters of men took to the streets, dancing, at the news. Nabir Khaled Yusef, a van driver, and one of them: "My feeling is of happiness. This referendum and the 100 percent shows that all Iraqis are ready to defend their country and leader."

Mahmoud Amin, a retired civil servant, echoed the idea.

"This is a great day to celebrate," he said. "We are not surprised with the 100 percent vote for the president, because all Iraqis are steadfast to their president, who has been known to them for 30 years."

On Tuesday, it was apparent that the vote was different from what most people know in democratic societies. Some voters stuffed bunches of ballots into boxes, saying they represented the votes of their entire families.

Ibrahim defended the 100 percent figure when asked by reporters whether such a percentage wasn't absurd.

"Someone who does not know the Iraqi people, he will not believe this percentage, but it is real. Whether it looks that way to someone or not," he said. "We don't have opposition in Iraq. They are situated in northern Iraq. Inside Iraq, there is no opposition.

A poll among Kurds in northern Iraq -- who are not under Saddam's control -- bore out Ibrahim's statement on the opposition.

The poll conducted by the Iraqi Institute for Democracy showed 94.5 percent of Iraqi Kurds questioned said they would not vote for Saddam.

The institute, which is based in the northern Kurdish enclave and calls itself a nonprofit group promoting democracy, said said about 3,000 Kurds were questioned Tuesday as Iraqis went to the polls in the referendum.

The poll was published Wednesday by the London-based Al Hayat daily, which reported only 64 Kurds said they would vote for Saddam while 129 said they were undecided.

In the last referendum in 1995, Saddam got 99.96 percent of the vote -- according to the official Iraqi results -- and officials had said they expected him to top that figure.

"This is a day of pride, honor and dignity as Iraqis express their free will to say "yes" to the pinnacle of their glory and loftiness," Ibrahim said, referring to Saddam.

The vote was widely advertised not only as backing for Saddam but as a rebuke to the United States, which has been pressing in the United Nations Security Council for a resolution that would allow a war to topple Saddam.

Ibrahim referred to the United States as the "forces of injustice and illusion," and called Iraq the land of "civilization and creativity."

Saddam, 65, became president in 1979 in a well-orchestrated transfer of power within his Baath Party.

Iraq has been under U.N. Security Council sanctions since invading Kuwait in 1990. U.N. resolutions require the country to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction, but it is widely believed to retain chemical and biological weapons, and the United States has accused it of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The United States wants a new Security Council resolution that would give U.N. weapons inspectors wide powers to uncover Iraq's arms and to trigger a war on Iraq if it resists full inspections.

France has led a campaign in the Security Council to drop from the resolution the idea of an automatic trigger for war.

homepage: homepage: http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.elections.ap/index.html

Bush and Saddam now have in common... 16.Oct.2002 12:46

maxomai maxomai@aracnet.com

...the fiction that they were elected by the people.


and Bush stole the election 16.Oct.2002 13:11

Giant Squid

Tyrants of a feather, Flock together

No wonder Saddam and the US were good friends

Bush stole the election by conspiring with his brother Jeb to defraud tens of thousands of black voters. This is now a provable fact.

Aint no democracy here either. Rather than focus on Iraq, we should attend to the tyrants here at home, maybe then the rest of the world would support the US policy, rather than oppose it.

Thats funny... 16.Oct.2002 17:27


"Bush stole the election by conspiring with his brother Jeb to defraud tens of thousands of black voters."

So basically what you are saying is that black voters are stupid right? We had the same ballot here in Oregon and to tell you the truth I didn't have a problem with it...

The Free Market 16.Oct.2002 17:59


This is the Free Market, not a democracy...

Welcome to the real world...

Trilox: 16.Oct.2002 19:26


"So basically what you are saying is that black voters are stupid right?"

No, those blacks denied the vote either:
A. Were denied any ballot at all
B. Were denied replacement ballots when they spoiled one,
unlike the voters in neighboring white-majority counties
C. Were denied access to the polls altogether

Kathleen Harris' office and Jeb Bush's office conspired to purge ELIGIBLE black/democratic voters from the rolls, with the (Republican-run) contractor supposedly hired to purge INeligible voters from the rolls.

"We had the same ballot here in Oregon and to tell you the truth I didn't have a problem with it... "

We do not use voting machines here in Oregon, we vote by mail. Remember? The problems were with the registered-voter rolls and the machines in black-majority counties not being set to reject spoiled ballots.

The "niggers is too dumb ta vote" argument is that of reporters too lazy to investigate and editors too chicken-shit to question the legitimacy of a sitting pResident.

who says the US doesn't have democracy? 17.Oct.2002 07:52

velcro buddah

plu*toc*ra*cy Pronunciation Key (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu*toc*ra*cies
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
[Greek ploutokrati : ploutos, wealth; see pleu- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]
pluto*crat (plt-krt) n.
pluto*cratic or pluto*crati*cal adj.
pluto*crati*cal*ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


\Plu*toc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? wealth + ? to be strong, to rule, fr.? strength: cf. F. plutocratie.] A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich; also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996


n : a political system governed by the wealthy people
Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A Plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc).

There have not been many examples of a "true" plutocracy in history as such, although they typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anarchy. Plutocracy is closely related to Aristocracy  http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy as a form of government, as generally wealth and nobility have been closely associated throughout history.

In the present era, there are numerous cases of wealthy individuals exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favourable legislation. Most western partisan democracies permit the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives, however it would be a bit idealistic to believe that no politicians are influenced by these "contributions". The more cynical might describe these donations as "bribes", although legally they are not.

See also:

Pareto principle (on unequal distribution of wealth)
corporate police state


"Plutocracy" Defined

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Plutocracy may also have social and cultural aspects. Thus, in Democracy for the Few  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm political scientist Michael Parenti is led to comment "American capitalism represents more than just an economic system; it is an entire cultural and social order, a plutocracy, a system of rule that is mostly by and for the rich. Most universities and colleges, publishing houses, mass circulation magazines, newspapers, television and radio stations, professional sports teams, foundations, churches, private museums, charity organizations, and hospitals are organized as corporations, ruled by boards of trustees (or directors or regents) composed overwhelmingly of affluent businesspeople. These boards exercise final judgment over all institutional matters."

The question of whether or not the United States could be said to be a plutocracy is discussed at length in Who Rules America  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm by sociologist G. William Domhoff. There Domhoff remarks: "The idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people might shape the economy and government for their own benefit goes against the American grain. Nevertheless, this book argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington. Their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments."

The argument to the effect that the US is a functional plutocracy (that is, that the wealthy exercise a preponderance of American political power) is different from, enormously better documented, and altogether more credible, than claims to the effect that there exists a small circle of conspirators bent on ruling the world, claims for which no credible evidence exists. (Domhoff explicitly disavows the existence of any such conspiracy.)


See the resource on the Bush cabinet, with links that illustrate its plutocratic nature
Go to the Essay on Politics
Go to the PL Political Field Guide
Return to the PL Site Map

Some other enlightening and useful links:

Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy

The Plutocratic Presidency, 17892002

The Corporate Domination of American Culture and Politics

who says the US doesn't have democracy?
who says the US doesn't have democracy?

Hey, maybe they have something here! 17.Oct.2002 08:17

Relatively Exact

Maybe we should learn from the Iraqi example and adopt their version of "democracy"!

VOTING STATION ATTENDANT: Hey, you, what's with all those ballots you got there?

VOTER: Oh, hey, like, no problem! I was just gonna vote for everyone in my family, but everyone thought, since I'm such a nice guy, they'd let me vote for everyone on the street!

ANOTHER VOTER: (staggering in under a heavy load of boxes) That's nothin'! I'M so special I'm voting for my whole BLOCK!


VOTER FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM: Wait a minute...do the people in your neighborhood even know you're voting for them?



It would certainly make it a lot easier to predict poll results, wouldn't it?

Ah, no.......that would put the think tanks out of work. Never mind.