Overseas Voting - Bad Idea!

Category: Middle East, World Affairs Topics: Elections, Iraq Views: 2356

Less than 26,000 Iraqi Americans registered to vote for the Iraqi elections. An even smaller number were expected to actually vote.

These numbers are disappointing to election organizers who had anticipated a significantly higher turnout. Just three weeks ago, on my US-based television program, election officials from the International Organization for Migration were predicting that over one half of what they estimated to be 240,000 eligible Iraqi Americans would participate in the January 30 vote. At the time I assumed that number was inflated and felt that organizers were setting themselves up for defeat.

There is no way to put a positive spin on a 10% turnout. But there is a way to explain it. The entire effort to bring overseas Iraqi voting to the US was a bad idea, and the execution of the program was worse.

Let me explain, first, why it was a bad idea.

Of the estimated 350,000 Iraqi Americans, less than one-third are immigrants from Iraq. Most are either children of immigrants or second generation Americans. Like immigrants from other Arab countries, many of these Iraqi Americans are part of the American success story. They are established in the business and professional life of the United States.

Thousands of Iraqi businessmen and women in California and Michigan are organized into powerful business associations. Their support is actively sought by candidates for public office and their concerns are heard in the halls of power. 

Iraqi Americans have held elected office on the state and local level and they are active leaders in both the Democratic and Republican parties. 

These Iraqi Americans just had their election on November 2, 2004, and they voted, ran for office, and participated on all levels. In fact, a top campaign official in the winning Senate campaign of Illinois Democrat Barack Obama, was an Iraqi American political professional.

These Iraqi Americans are deeply committed to the future of Iraq. They regularly meet with the Administration and their elected officials to voice their concerns. They care about US policy towards Iraq and want it to be better. But vote in Iraq's elections? That's another story.

Many Iraqi Americans interviewed in the past several weeks are closely following events in Iraq, but don't feel that, as Americans, they had a right to elect the future leader of that country.

This is not to say that all Iraqi Americans feel this way. There are many who came to the US as forced exiles, not willing immigrants. There are thousands of Kurds and Shi'a refugees who fled persecution and thousands more of Chaldeans, Assyrians, and other opponents of the regime who left the country fearing for their lives. They are exiles who hope to return to their country. They have a direct stake in the country and, therefore, a stake in the election.

But to describe all Iraqi Americans as exiles and a diaspora is not only inaccurate, it does fundamental damage to the American experience. The US is not a nation of dual-loyalty exiles. Iraqi Americans, Lebanese Americans, and Egyptian Americans, like Polish Americans, Irish Americans, and Greek Americans all care about the countries from which they or their parents originated. But they are Americans and when they vote, they vote in US elections. 

If extending overseas voting to the children of all Iraqi immigrants was a bad idea that was destined to result in a poor turnout, than the execution of this program was even worse making it difficult for those who wanted to vote to do so.

The problems were many and not the fault of the group that was commissioned to organize and implement the election.

First and foremost was the fact that the US organizers were not authorized to begin until mid-November 2004. Despite knowing for months that the election would be held on January, 30, 2005, and would involve overseas voting, the very late start meant that an enormous effort to reach out to hundreds of thousands of potential voters in fifty states had to be accomplished in a short two-month period. 

Additional difficulties occurred as a result of the fact that the organizers were bound by the requirements imposed by the Iraqi election commission. Overseas voters were required to register a week before they could vote and had to appear in person to prove either their Iraqi citizenship or the citizenship of their father. Budget constraints and the certification requirements meant that the organizers had to settle on establishing five US cities as voting and registration center. The chosen cities were: Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Nashville, and Washington DC.

Established procedures required that potential voters had to register at one of the sites between January 17 and January 25. As a result many Iraqi Americans complained that they would have to travel as much as 800 miles each way twice in two weeks. This presented an insurmountable hardship to many.

And then there is the issue of language. Since the election commission required that the ballots be printed in Iraq's two official languages, Arabic and Kurdish, many first generation Chaldeans and Assyrians (who form the largest groups of Iraqi Americans) were discouraged from participating because they lacked fluency in either language.

And finally, the big questions: Was this a legitimate election? What was the election about? And who was running? While Iraqis in their country may have answers to these questions (although some recent polling suggests that many Iraqis, in Iraq, are confused, conflicted, or simply unable to provide answers) too many Iraqi Americans have too little access to information to make an informed vote.

Unfortunately, this experiment in overseas voting fared only somewhat better, with more than 260,000 registering to vote in 14 countries-roughly one-fifth of the estimated turnout. Given the importance that many Iraqis place in electing a truly representative government, their aspirations would have been better served had the entire enterprise been better conceived and better executed.

Dr. James J. Zogby is the President of Arab American Institute and can be reached at [email protected]

  Category: Middle East, World Affairs
  Topics: Elections, Iraq
Views: 2356

Related Suggestions

The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Older Comments:
Yes, Dr. Zogby, but how else can America be sure it's looking out for the best interests of its vassal states? I'm only joking!

But seriously, Dr. Zogby, I enjoyed your analysis - particularly concerning the 'dual-loyalty' aspect. In addition, I appreciate your contributions to governance (God willing) in your and my country (and perhaps elsewhere as well).

Though the elections were an outright sham, it puts the US in a bit of an awkward and humerous position. The US in spite of all its plans for Iran, is now forced to appease the Shia majority of Iraq. In doing so unwittingly, Shi'ite Iran is also happy, and in a strange laconic way somewhat tolerable of US proposals and vise versa. This also pacifies the overwhelming shi'ite majority of Iran as their guys are propped into power. However I am amazed that if the elections are fair and square, no one factored into the equation this most definite possibility of a Shia victory. This will put King Bush in a terrible spot of having an old enemy Iran, possibly much better armed than Iraq, and a strongly supportive pro-Iranian Shia majority taking power in Iraq who will then force the US to do what it never intended- Quit Iraq. This also makes the Israeli's scratch their heads because at least before they had two of their old enemies busy strangling the other. The pro-US Saddam acted as a buffer for many years keeping the Iranians and Arab sattes in check. Now you have a united front of two sworn enemies of Israel, Iraq and Iran united as one shi'ite nation, thanks to King Bush. Does anyone think at all in DC?

Assalamu Alaikum
First of all, you forgot to mention Philadelphia as one of the
cities where Iraqis could vote. I should know because I live here.
Do not forget that the White House had tremedous pressure
from opponents to stall the Jan. 30th election and push it back.
I feel no one was 100% sure it would take place on the 30th.
Even if one Iraqi living in America was able to vote for their
beloved, home country then I feel it was worth it and a success.
Don't forget it was not just America where exiled Iraqis could
vote. Read the newspapers, look at the joy on the faces of those
Iraqis abroad who were able to vote. There is so much
pessimism abot this that no one wants to admit it was