Originally posted by redmenace
But why are they choosing not to? Is it plain and simple resentment? Their motives are in question here as well. If I sizeable portion of the US population decided to boycott an election for simply stupid and selfish reasons. Would that make it illigitamite. I will be honest, I can't read the minds if the individual Sunnis but my suspicions is that at least half of sunnis and pissed about not being able to repress the majority. The pther half are worried about the other half cutting off their heads.
Very stimulating conversation but I must finish my exam for my uber finance axam tomorrow.
a) because they live in what are effectively lawless regions where death is a real possibility for those who turn up at a voting station (again, remember some places were simply left off the voting list as being too unsafe anyways)
b) their representative parties had already boycotted the election as taking place in too poor a security situation. Whilst there was probably a degree of self interest in that move for the parties, it means there was no natural sunni representative to vote for.
Youre making a dangerous assumption that the boycott was for stupid and selfish reasons. And, again, you have to note that it's not just a sizeable propoprtion, it's a complete ethnic group. It's roughly equivalent, I think, to the entire population of Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland* not voting in a general election
at least partly due to a lack of parties, security and/or polling stations.
*technically, that's still less than 20%.
Originally posted by ngtm1r
That's not the way it works.
By not voting, you forfeit your right to have any participation in your own government whatsoever. Boycotting a vote is stupid and senseless, for it only insures that your voice will not be heard. The government is there: whether it is legitimate or not is rather a moot point unless you posess the means to change it. By boycotting a democratic vote, you deny yourself one of those means. Perhaps, as you say, there is no canidate that represents their interests. Regardless, the Sunnis have even denied themselves the right to choose the lesser of the evils they are presented with.
The vote has been made, the government elected, and it rules the Sunnis whether they voted or not. The Sunnis must still bow to the will of the majority, regardless. That is the reality of things, there is no escaping it at present.
Democracy requires a free and fair vote; the security circumstances in the Sunni areas of Iraq prevented either taking place there. Also, democracy is not about choosing the 'lesser of evils' - it's about choosing a representative who matches your views and values. UK / US democracy is about that now, yes, but that doesn't make it good.
Again, what you should be remembering is that the choice to boycott was not a free choice to make - we don't call elections legitimate if armed men are telling you who to vote for, so why should we call them legit if armed men are telling you
not to vote. (and the more Sunnis feel marginalised politcally, the more support for armed insurgency may grow).
As it stands, all / any Sunni representation will be solely determined by Shi'ite and Kurdish elected parties; and this is the 'government' which will draft the constitution of the country - surely the one of all which has to have equal and fair representation?
