EMAIL OF THE DAY

“The core fact is not turnout. The US had 60% turnout during the 2004 election, but that alone isn’t enough. The real issue is the difference between the number of people who want to participate and the number who do. In the US, that percentage is almost immeasurably small. The provisional ballot controversies notwithstanding, the disenfranchised pool of voters in the US is tiny and actively managed downward.
Recent polling in Iraq indicates that upwards of 90% of Iraqis are interested in the election. Other polling indicates that only 60% or so will participate. If the polls are to be believed (which is a big if), fully one third of those who are interested will not participate.
This is a big deal. If you care about democracy in general and the example Iraq will set for the Middle East in particular, you should care about these numbers. One danger is that “democracy” becomes synonymous with “tyranny of the majority,” to paraphrase John Stuart Mills. Another is that those who wanted to vote, but did not, fail to “suspend disbelief” towards the winners.
The losers of elections provide legitimacy through their acquiescence to the results. If one third of the eligible and interested voters are not included in the outcome, the democratic process of losing elections is short circuited. Winners do not need persuasion that democracy works.
There was no realistic alternative to holding elections and holding them now. Still, tomorrow’s vote will lay the foundation for civil war in Iraq. If you care more about the domestic political consequences than the daily reality of Iraqis, you’re hopelessly narcissistic. If not, constructively drive the conservative debate regarding how to cope with the new reality.” More feedback on the Letters Page.