HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
On the day when Saddam Hussein was reelected president by a landslide, a fascinating New York Times story takes us to Tikrit, the northern Iraqi city where the despot — sorry, the democratically elected president — was born. According to the Times, the throngs "marshaled outside polling places in Tikrit were determined to leave nobody in any doubt as to Mr. Hussein's popularity. Hundreds of Tikritis in a state of near hysteria shouted 'Bush, Bush, listen, we love our great leader, President Saddam Hussein!'" Indeed, the voters often "appeared to be in a trance, transported by their worship of Mr. Hussein, and by their contempt for President Bush, from the grim realities of everyday life in Iraq to a state of bliss. Women carrying pins punctured their fingers so they could mark their 'yes' votes in blood. Men followed suit, using the blunt edges of paper clips as makeshift knives to start the blood flowing."
There was, needless to say, "no opposition candidate, no election campaign, no public appearances by the secretive Mr. Hussein, and no semblance of secrecy in the balloting procedures." Iraqis were given a choice, sure — the choice of voting "yes" or "no" to another term in office for their beloved leader. Yet despite the Orwellian quality of the whole affair, the Times reports that the "Iraqis approached the voting with a deadly earnestness, for many reasons, not least the importance of registering their loyalty to Mr. Hussein." (Given the history of Hussein's regime, "deadly" would seem to be an appropriate word.)
In other words, it was just another day in the life of a totalitarian "democracy." Iraq in election season, the Times suggests, best resembles not America or any Western democracy, but China "during the Cultural Revolution . . . While the crowds then were vastly greater, the messianic fervor appeared to be much the same. In Mao, China's Red Guards found a leader whose every word was the graven truth, and whose actions, however harsh, were embraced with unquestioning zeal." (This is particularly true in Tikrit, which has been showered with Hussein's largesse since he assumed power, and which is regarded by many military planners as the dictator's principle "power center" outside Baghdad.)
It's worth noting that the last time that the Iraqi dictator stood for reelection, in 1996, he received a staggering 99.96 percent of the vote. That may seem like a fairly safe majority to those of us used to Gore-Bush tussles and hanging chads — but this time around, Hussein is apparently poised to do even better. According to election officials, most of the .04 percent "no" vote last time (about 3,600 Iraqis, give or take, out of nine million voters) was due to spoiled ballots and other voter errors. This year, they have already estimated that their beloved president will receive the whole 100 percent, thanks to better organization and superior election procedures.
Or maybe it's just that everyone who voted "no" last time has been shot.
Source: National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-douthat101602.asp
There was, needless to say, "no opposition candidate, no election campaign, no public appearances by the secretive Mr. Hussein, and no semblance of secrecy in the balloting procedures." Iraqis were given a choice, sure — the choice of voting "yes" or "no" to another term in office for their beloved leader. Yet despite the Orwellian quality of the whole affair, the Times reports that the "Iraqis approached the voting with a deadly earnestness, for many reasons, not least the importance of registering their loyalty to Mr. Hussein." (Given the history of Hussein's regime, "deadly" would seem to be an appropriate word.)
In other words, it was just another day in the life of a totalitarian "democracy." Iraq in election season, the Times suggests, best resembles not America or any Western democracy, but China "during the Cultural Revolution . . . While the crowds then were vastly greater, the messianic fervor appeared to be much the same. In Mao, China's Red Guards found a leader whose every word was the graven truth, and whose actions, however harsh, were embraced with unquestioning zeal." (This is particularly true in Tikrit, which has been showered with Hussein's largesse since he assumed power, and which is regarded by many military planners as the dictator's principle "power center" outside Baghdad.)
It's worth noting that the last time that the Iraqi dictator stood for reelection, in 1996, he received a staggering 99.96 percent of the vote. That may seem like a fairly safe majority to those of us used to Gore-Bush tussles and hanging chads — but this time around, Hussein is apparently poised to do even better. According to election officials, most of the .04 percent "no" vote last time (about 3,600 Iraqis, give or take, out of nine million voters) was due to spoiled ballots and other voter errors. This year, they have already estimated that their beloved president will receive the whole 100 percent, thanks to better organization and superior election procedures.
Or maybe it's just that everyone who voted "no" last time has been shot.
Source: National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-douthat101602.asp
