Condi shrugs.
The NYTimes reports that Bremer and the CPA decided against splitting Iraq's election into districts and instead adopted, at the UN's suggestion, a Dutch-like system with proportional representation. You vote for a party who has a list of candidates, and the legislature is composed of the proportion of that list equal to the proportion of the vote for that party.
But with the violence in certain regions predicted to lead to under-representation of Sunnis in particular, now the Bushies are blaming the UN (surprise!) and wishing it was all like Texas where they could redistrict to their hearts' content...
Analysis and quotes below the fold:
"We looked at a lot of alternatives and presented them to the Iraqis and everyone else," said an official involved in the decision-making process. "Basically, a nationwide constituency solved a lot of problems and made our lives a lot easier."
But now, with the violent insurgency and more than 7,000 candidates, many in alliances with other candidates, running for 275 seats nationwide, the disadvantages of the current system are becoming all too apparent, according to American, Iraqi and United Nations officials.
For one thing, these officials say, there is no possibility of postponing the election selectively in those districts gripped by the insurgency. For another, the expected low turnout in perhaps a fifth of the country, where the Sunni minority lives, will presumably lessen the chances of candidates who are popular there.
Now I think the Dutch system is actually better for stable, developed nations, as the antics in Texas reveal. But it is unlikely to work in a state (i.e. country) that is actually made up of at least three overlapping nations (there are plenty of Turkmen and others in Iraq as well as Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds), each with a strong geographic identity.
In those cases, it may be best to have some form of devolution on cultural/religious matters, as we see in the UK and Scotland. In Iraq, of course, we have to get a Constitutional committee formed first, just to be able to talk about that.
Now you can imagine how the Bush Admin is going to play this:
Most former occupation officials interviewed said there was a consensus around Mr. Bremer that drawing district lines in the heat of the occupation would have itself divided Iraqis.
"We were always running into the fairness question," said an official in Baghdad. "We knew the environment was one of conflict. Why make plans for an election that by themselves create even more opportunities for friction?"
But some officials said Mr. Bremer's advisers were now blaming Ms. Perelli for the decision. One said that he had attended a meeting with Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser and secretary of state-designate, at which she simply shrugged off the decision and said it had been made by the United Nations.
Get the picture? The failures in Iraq, from the sanctions to the weapons inspections to the elections and their aftermath, are all being set up as the UN's fault (plus a spicy bit of Bill Clinton I'm sure).
There is, of course, some difference between a plan and its implementation, and the best efforts of the UN under ridiculous demands from the Bushies and the Iraqis to make suggestions would never be able to withstand the singular impudence and dogmatism of Rumsfeld, nor the sniffing attitude of Rice, nor the imperious incuriosity of Bush, nor the rancor of Dick Cheney, nor the rah-rah go-git-em of the Rethugs in Congress and their RWCM marching band.
Lest there be any mistake, this is the Bush Administration's bed. Without any further choice in the matter, all we can do is watch them lie in it. Lie, lie, lie.