THE GLASS THAT'S ALWAYS HALF EMPTY

I'm starting to believe that the New York Times will wait to mention projects or programs in Iraq that reflect real progress, certainly real change in people's lives since Saddam's time, until they can figure out a way to put a negtive spin on their admission.

The wind-up here is a bit long, but bear with me: the pitch is pretty good.

Thus although the CPA has been mentioning for some time that there are literally hundreds of local councils, freely elected, all over Iraq, the real beginnings of democracy not just in Iraq but in the Arab world, (and that in all these elections the Islamists keep losing) only now do they get front page coverage in the Times -- tempered by as much bad news as possible.

As near as I can tell therefore, the article isn't about the councils, and the progress they're making (which is a relatively untold story) but on the fact that the council members are being targeted for working with the Americans (a story that's been told over and over and over.) Would it be appropriate to tell the story of these councils without mentioning the impact the security situation is having on them? Absolutely not: it is a critical part of the environment in which they are trying to function. But there is a difference between writing the security function as a part of the environment, and writing the security piece as the basis of the story.

At a recent local government meeting in the Rashid neighborhood of south Baghdad, the first item on the agenda was a moment of silence for council members in other districts who had been assassinated.

Then the Rashid Council turned to teachers' salaries and access to a garden. Moments later, during a break, the whistle and crash of a mortar shell pierced the cigarette smoke and din of conversation. People rushed out in panic. "It's a mortar!" someone yelled.

The council is one of hundreds set up to promote democracy by giving Iraqis practice in the give and take of local government. But democracy is proving an increasingly dangerous business these days.

The council is being targeted as "collaborators." But look at the move made next:

Weeks away from the June 30 ceremonial transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government, Americans and Iraqis are starting to question whether the democratic reforms the United States is trying to install here will carry over.

The weeks of fighting in Falluja and the south, in which many Iraqi civilians have died, and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, have made the democracy program an even harder sell.

I understand the nervousness about whether democracy will carry over because it's so fragile. But why would the fighting make it a hard sell? and what does the prison scandal have to do with it at all? There are those in the country who see democracy as a threat to their perogatives, and those who see it as a threat to Islam as they understand it, but why would those attracted to it now suddenly become less attracted to it because fighting continues? We keep being told that the messenger matters more than the message, so that the damge done to our reputation with the prison scandal will make democracy unattractive. Is there any evidence for that? Would people committed to a new Iraq, wanting to live free lives turn their backs on that because of something we did wrong?

The reporter continues:

In addition, the democracy program is being sown in an uncertain climate. Iraqis are still trying to bridge ethnic and religious fault lines in their society as they work to form an interim government that will start on June 30. And in the days leading up to the transfer, American officials have warned that the violence will only get worse

Reasonable. Might it not also be reasonable to suggest that the large number of these councils (still not mentioned, you notice) might be assisting in making the climate less uncertain, by exposing more Iraqis to what democracy might offer them?

Only after a few more grafs does the extensiveness of the program even get mentioned, only to be followed immediately by more discussion of violence:

The program has set up hundreds of local councils, held civic dialogues and presented guidance on topics like the virtues of keeping budget transactions public. National conferences have been held on politics, the rights of the disabled and other subjects. The program has built a staff of about 2,500 Iraqis working as discussion leaders.

At the Rashid Council, members have had to be concerned about their safety as well as community services. The names of at least nine members were found on a leaflet written by the Sheik Ahmed Yassin Brigades, a little-known group in Iraq named for a leader of the militant group Hamas who was killed last month by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip.

Yes, those Hamas militants. And I'm sure their buddies in Iraq will express their "militancy" the same way -- by trying to kill civilians. Meanwhile, where are the interview with participants in the program? or with Iraqis who live in communities served by those councils?

Only then do we hear that the Islamists cannot get elected to the councils. But this isn't presented as good news -- proof that the idea, tossed about periodically, that the Iraqis might vote for radical Islamists, is being proven false all over the country. Instead it's presented as yet another reason why there is violence perpetuated against the councils.

Sami Sharif, the council leader, attributed the violence to groups that want political power on their own terms. "There are a lot of Islamic groups that lost the chance to participate on the city councils at the beginning," he said. "Now when they see the role of these councils, they do not like the idea they have no one on them."

Again, obviously the fact that the Islamists turn to violence when they lose is relevant and important. But it would not be too much to ask for the reporter to point out and make explicit that the reason they are forced to turn to violence is becasue the Iraqi people continue to reject them when given a choice.

This article presents these councils is total isolation, in a vacumn. Who are they, how did they get the positions they have? What difference does it make: we bring them democracy and they just try and kill their representatives as "collaborators," right? so why are we fighting to free people who don't want to be free?

Instead if this article had bothered to mention that these councils were elected, interviewed people who were excited to have had that chance to vote, talked about what voter participation was like, and mentioned that the people turning to violence were the most extreme elements who were doing so because the people would give them no power when offered a choice -- then suddenly what we're fighting for might seem worthwhile.

Just a few more facts here and there and the story becomes not same old same old but a fresh new story -- but that fresh new story might explore a reason why this war was worthwhile. Guess we don't want to bother with that.

Comments

[CalDevil]

The day after John Kerry is elected this November, the media will magically discover:
(i) the "amazing" progress in reconstruction, economic growth and new found freedom that have benefited the people of Iraq;
(ii) that we're winning the war on terror, but strong resolve is still necessary; and
(iii) that the economy is enjoying great (but stable and controlled - not a bubble) growth bringing new levels of prosperity to many Americans.

The media will report the persistence of each of these good time conditions for several years and not cease until the days leading to the inauguration of the next Republican President.

[william]

The article is perfectly clear and you seem to have misread it. This sentence tells you exactly what is going on, "The council is one of hundreds set up to promote democracy by giving Iraqis practice in the give and take of local government." No campaigns. No political parties. No stuffing your vote into a ballot box. No democracy.

There is this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1185792,00.html

But that's all a quick Googling produced. There's nothing to suggest widespread local elections nor particularly that these councils are freely elected as you assert. This paragragh,

"The program has set up hundreds of local councils, held civic dialogues and presented guidance on topics like the virtues of keeping budget transactions public. National conferences have been held on politics, the rights of the disabled and other subjects. The program has built a staff of about 2,500 Iraqis working as discussion leaders."

reveals that these councils are more accurately described as American organized and overseen assemblies of Iraqis role-playing for the purpose of education. That the ongoing violence makes people apprehensive and pessimistic is captured quite sufficiently and uncontroversially, in my opinion.

[dauber]

Well, I don't know what to tell you, because that contradicts information being put out for some time, that there have been low level elections at the council level all over hte country. The CPA has been trumpeting this for some time, and the military has been overseeing these elections, particularly in rural areas.

[dauber]

Not surprisingly, this is from hte Post, which has been far more willing to present good news:

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/democracy/shadid.html

Surprisingly, this is from the Guardian (and it's a better article.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1185792,00.html

I guess it would have been more accurate for me to say "dozens" then "hundreds." It's hard to say though since the cpa is such a complete and total disaster -- everything is organized by date with no search engine, so, you know, thanks for nothing.

[william]

The CPA article is informative but confirms much of the Times reporting regarding the nature of the councils and the general sentiment. We don't know if the lack of mention of elections by the Times is because the south Baghdad councils are appointed and/or there was no follow-through with previous elections which may have amounted to nothing. The reason may be for the very matters the article chooses to talk about. There may be no good news to follow up on from elections. That's what the Times implies and that may, in fact, be the reality. I don't find the Times reporting objectionable in the least based on what is known. If there was evidence that the Times was negligent in failing to report what others are, you might have a point. But that's not the case.

Some time ago I had this bright idea that we should adopt a bottom-up approach to transferring sovereignty: local elections and getting out of the way. I'm sure you know the phenomenon of suddenly seeing everywhere what was once hidden once the mind is focused anew. Now, I'm keenly aware of a lot of people talking about rolling elections and sectoral governments as a proposal. But, alas, very little in the way of tangible results.