Small scale elections are being held in off the track towns in Iraq (and in the Shia parts of Iraq no less.) First, the good news: the use of ration cards seems to work. Activists have at least some success in getting women to the polls. In a reversal of common wisdom (and the line I've been pushing here for a good long while) the Shia are, at least in the earliest elections, electing professional people and not those with religious party affiliations -- but it begins to look as if the religious parties are beginning to organize. (Were they slow, not fast, as conventional wisdom believed? Just caught off guard by the speedy organization of elections in these particular towns? Or is their organization just not going to matter that much? Hard to tell.)
Most important, of course, is the reaction of the people, who see this as the vital step it is, and as the fulfillment of a promise -- it seems clear that letting them vote is going to buy substantial amounts of time in terms of the people's relationship with the American forces. (And I dare you to read this article and be apathetic about your own right to vote come November.)
Here's the risk: does the success of the vote in these few small towns really mean it could be pulled off throughout the country? If not, this is going to make more trouble than it's worth. Ever hear of The Theory of Rising Expectations? It's one thing to say national elections aren't possible It's another to say it after you've already held elections in some towns. What will the argument be for why these small towns but not Baghdad, or Mosul, or Fallujah -- or for that matter Najaf?
Why do I get the feeling these guys didn't clear this with Baghdad in advance? One way or the other, the worst possible thing we can do now is nullify these elections. If we don't want to run national elections yet then say they were test drives, say we're doing a study to improve the process, say anything, but don't go back and mess with what's been done in these towns or we will lose all credibility.
