Today's Globe and Mail offers an interesting study in contrasts. The top two stories on their home page deal with election coverage. Canada's election took priority, so leading the way was a report on last night's debate between the leaders of Canada's political parties. Following hot on its heels was a report on the voting in Iraq yesterday.
The article on the leadership debate would be annoyingly familiar to readers of North American media. Whether you're American or Canadian, all election coverage is beginning to sound pretty much the same. Leader wraps himself in flag, other leader talks about how corrupt first leader is and what a better job he would have done, first leader retaliates and so on. In Canada, we have it slightly worse, as we have two additional opposition parities that provide their variations on the same theme.
Nothing new is ever said in these debates: Everyone sticks to the same old sad formulae that have stood them in such good stead over the last however many weeks they have been campaigning. A leadership debate is not an opportunity to judge the contenders on their merits as quick thinkers; rather, it is an opportunity to see how well they can answer different questions with the same response over and over again.
Reading the article about the recent Iraq voting is like the difference between breathing the air in Los Angeles and the air on a mountaintop. Instead of the torpid, sleep-inducing language of North American campaigns, here there is excitement and interest. People are talking about the importance of voting and meaning what they say.
There is no need to lecture the people of Iraq on getting out and voting; they know how important it is for them to have representation in the upcoming government. The Sunni Muslims who had boycotted the preliminary elections last year turned out in waves this year so as to ensure their voices are heard in Parliament.
Even the paramilitary groups, who threatened disruptions last year, were silent. They've recognized the inevitable and seen that the people they represent must vote in order to secure their future in a new Iraq. You don't have to approve of or like George Bush to appreciate how much more these people are excited by their election than most North Americans can even hope to be.
Article comments
1 - valery dawe
Suppose that as soon as the elected leadership in Iraq took office their first move was to hold a referendum so that the Iraqi people could vote for (or against) the end of the US occupation of Iraq. Suppose that a huge majority of Iraqi people voted for the immediate withdrawal of all US troops. What would happen? The rather swift demise of so-called democracy in Iraq, an entrenched US presence and an end to the farce.