Will Iraqis Vote?

According to a poll conducted by the International Republican Institute and based on 1,900 face-to-face interviews conducted from December 26, 2004 to January 7, 2005, 64.5% responded that it is “very likely” that they will vote and 17.2% responded “somewhat likely.” Of those who said that they do not intend to vote, 33.4% responded that the reason was “Security situation is too dangerous.” Only 12.3% responded “Person or group I respect has called for a boycott.”

In answer to the question, “To the best of your knowledge, what will Iraqis be voting for in the elections scheduled for January 30, 2005,” 38.4% responded that they would be voting for president, compared with 38% who responded that they would be voting for the members of the national assembly. (In fact, they’ll be voting for a national assembly, which will then choose a presidential council, consisting of a president and two vice presidents, prepare and approve a constitution, approve and supervise a council of ministers, establish an independent judiciary, and discharge legislative functions. The functions and makeup of the assembly are described here.)

Let’s hope that the elections proceed, that they establish a functioning government with legitimacy, and that that government can proceed to battle the insurgents effectively (as well as asking the U.S. and other countries to begin withdrawing troops).

P.S. I’ve gotten some comments (1, 2) from those who believe that because elections do not confer legitimacy on unjust acts, they are themselves unjust or pointless. I agree that elections cannot legitimate unjust acts, but I am not using legitimacy here in the strictly moral sense of the term; it also has a very important sociological usage. That in turn may have instrumental moral significance. If elections create sociological legitimacy, such legitimacy is likely to help an Iraqi government to combat the jihadis and Ba’athists more effectively, which in turn will make it more likely both that civil peace and greater freedom will emerge and that the U.S. will withdraw its troops. If those goals are morally good, and elections are instrumental to their achievement, then elections share in that moral goodness, not because they morally legitimize unjust acts (of which the new Iraqi government will undoubtedly engage in its share, as all goverments around the world do), but because they make possible a more just and less predatory regime, which is morally better than a less just and more predatory regime. Thus, the hope for the success of the elections stems not from a misguided theory of the “general will,” but from a desire for civil peace and security and the withdrawal of foreign troops.