A New York Times editorial this morning referred to the results of the recent Iraq referendum as being “modestly encouraging”:
“The results of the referendum in Iraq, finally made official yesterday, were at least modestly encouraging, with 79 percent of Iraqis voting in favor of the new constitution.”
To try to put this in perspective, can you imagine 79 percent of Americans agreeing on anything? If a referendum in this nation passed by garnering 79 percent of the votes cast, would any media outlet have the gall to suggest that the result was “modestly encouraging?” Yet, the editorial staff continued:
“The constitution is a deeply flawed and divisive document that does not provide a workable template for national unity. The hope lies in the willingness of Iraq's main communities to place their faith in an electoral process and in the commitment by the dominant Shiite and Kurdish parties to open the constitution to significant amendments after the next round of elections, in December.”
Hmmm. Imagine a government relying on the electoral process and the will of the majority of the population that represents more than 80 percent of the inhabitants. Isn’t that what is called “democracy”?
Though still referring to the Iraqi referendum, the Times gave the reader an idea of what its view of “bipartisanship” is:
“Those rules are meant to encourage enough compromises to make the final result acceptable to all three of Iraq's main religious and ethnic groups - the only workable basis for national unity and constitutional development.”
So, in the Times’ view, unless the minority agrees with the majority, there is no basis for national unity and constitutional development.
“Now their leaders will have to persuade them to do more than just show up to vote for their particular communal faction.”
If only the Times shared this sentiment with its readers whenever they were about to head to the polls.
