NationStates Jolt Archive

Presidential and Parliamentary elections in Syria have resulted in a tremendous landslide victory for the National Progressive Front, as well as incumbent President Bashar al-Assad.

In the referendum, Bashar attained a 97.62% approval, retaining the Presidency. 0.18% voted "No", and 2.26% votes were "Invalid". Bashar was the only Presidential candidate.

The interior ministry stated that turnout was "enormous", at 95.86%, and that:
"This great consensus shows the political maturity of Syria and the brilliance of our democracy."

In the parliamentary elections, according to results released on 26 April 2007, the National Progressive Front won 172 seats, two more than those reserved for it, while independents won the other 78 seats. Turnout was 56.12% of the 11.96 million eligible voters, and 30 female candidates were elected, exactly as many as in 2003.

Opponents of the government and human rights activists claimed fraud and a turnout of at most 10 per cent.

Some background info:

Syria elects on national level a head of state - the president - and a legislature. The People's Council (Majlis al-Sha'ab) has 250 members elected for a four year term in 15 multi-seat constituencies, in which 167 seats are guaranteed for the Al-Jabha al-Wataniyyah at-Wahdwamiyyah (National Patriotic Front). Syria is a single-party state. This means that only one political party, the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party is legally allowed to hold effective power. Although minor parties are allowed, they are legally required to accept the leadership of the dominant party and are member of the front. The presidential candidate is appointed by the parliament and needs to be confirmed for a seven year term in a referendum. The last referendum was on the 10th of July 2000.

During the French Mandate and after the independence the parliamentary elections in Syria have been held under a system similar to the Lebanese one, with fixed representation for every religious community, including Druzes and Alawis. In 1949 the system was modified and only the Christian minority (composed of Arabs, Armenians and Assyrians) benefited from reserved seats.




My question is why do they bother putting up even a facade of democracy?

My question is why do they bother putting up even a facade of democracy?

Saddam used to do it too, and claim something like 99.9% of the vote. I suppose it's so you can't give you're opponents any ammunition except to claim that there is fraud. If you go for even a remotely realistic figure, say 80%, then immediately there is 20% of people you can't claim 'love you'.

My question is why do they bother putting up even a facade of democracy?

We have our form of democracy, Syrians have theirs, Iranians have theirs, the Chinese have theirs.

Depends on who you talk to - each of the above will say they use the 'true' form of democracy.

*shrug*

My thought is, you don't so such care about the Syrians having choice in an elections as your worried because the current leader of the regional Baath party is not your stooge against Iran like the last one was until you got rid of him.
How is the US any better, you only have like 1 extra party to vote for, both parties essentially represent capitalism, the US is basically only 1 step forward, half a step back from Syria.

so its like high voter turnouts in Florida/postal orders? :D

My thought is, you don't so such care about the Syrians having choice in an elections as your worried because the current leader of the regional Baath party is not your stooge against Iran like the last one was until you got rid of him.
How is the US any better, you only have like 1 extra party to vote for, both parties essentially represent capitalism, the US is basically only 1 step forward, half a step back from Syria.

Well, technically Philo and I are British, but anyway. If Syria had truly free and democratic elections, and they all voted yes on a referendum entitled "Destroy the West", I would at least be happy in the knowledge that this opinion was thiers and was not decided for them by a military dictator.

Not that Syria can exert much influence in the region anyway. Thier military hasn't recovered from the 1967 war with Israel. Thier diplomatic clout is zero.

Thier diplomatic clout is zero.

So when Bush said we had to get someone to tell the Syrians to tell Hizbollah to "Knock this shit off", he wasn't actually saying Syria was important in any way?

So when Bush said we had to get someone to tell the Syrians to tell Hizbollah to "Knock this shit off", he wasn't actually saying Syria was important in any way?

Personally, I think Hezbollah is a tiger that was once held on a tight leash and fed by the tamer that is Syria. But recently I believe they have become much more independant of thier state funder, rallying popular support and raising thier own funding, training thier own.

Syria is not nearly as dangerous as Iran. It's the sick man of the Middle East.

My thought is, you don't so such care about the Syrians having choice in an elections as your worried because the current leader of the regional Baath party is not your stooge against Iran like the last one was until you got rid of him.

Oh brother. Either that or most of us knows that Syria is just like Iran. No Democracy and no civil rights.

How is the US any better, you only have like 1 extra party to vote for, both parties essentially represent capitalism, the US is basically only 1 step forward, half a step back from Syria.

HAHA!! You are a funny little person are you not? Yes you are.

Depends on who you talk to - each of the above will say they use the 'true' form of democracy.
If you talk to government people, yes. I have my doubts the average Chinese or Syrian citizen will call their government democratic.

And even their government people will know that they're lying. The democratic process implies the ability to vote a government out of office by choosing an alternative. A referendum saying "Am I doing a good job?" with two "Yes" options and a "Maybe" that requires you to leave name, address and phone number certainly isn't.

My question is why do they bother putting up even a facade of democracy?

Why do we? Its just a matter of degree

Hey 0.18% voted no...

Now watch as 0.18% of the population is arrested and executed.

My thought is, you don't so such care about the Syrians having choice in an elections as your worried because the current leader of the regional Baath party is not your stooge against Iran like the last one was until you got rid of him.
How is the US any better, you only have like 1 extra party to vote for, both parties essentially represent capitalism, the US is basically only 1 step forward, half a step back from Syria.

We have two major parties, we've countless other tiny parties that no one votes for because they're fringe. The two major parties have strong historical ties to American democracy, and have forged a solid ground in the broad American center.

They are both pro-mixed market capitalism because that is what an overwhelming majority of Americans, especially in the center, support. I'm sorry your fringe beliefs aren't represented by our government, but our economic system has brought us unparalelled prosperity, and because of that we will continue to support it.

How is the US any better, you only have like 1 extra party to vote for, both parties essentially represent capitalism, the US is basically only 1 step forward, half a step back from Syria.

Yes, because having two major parties that both have the same economic system policy is EXACTLY like having just one candidate to vote for. :rolleyes:

If the American people wanted communism or socialism, a communist or socialist party would be in power. But they don't, so it's not. Get the fuck over it.

Yes, because having two major parties that both have the same economic system policy is EXACTLY like having just one candidate to vote for. :rolleyes:

If the American people wanted communism or socialism, a communist or socialist party would be in power. But they don't, so it's not. Get the fuck over it.

QFT.

If you talk to government people, yes. I have my doubts the average Chinese or Syrian citizen will call their government democratic.

And even their government people will know that they're lying. The democratic process implies the ability to vote a government out of office by choosing an alternative. A referendum saying "Am I doing a good job?" with two "Yes" options and a "Maybe" that requires you to leave name, address and phone number certainly isn't.

Normally I'd agree with you Leo - but we're still coming at it from our Western Liberal Democracy slant - after all democracy in it's truest sense is merely what the people want. There's no conditions in the theory to have a time limit on it. "Democracy requires you to change leaders every X years".

My father, in his work, came across Chinese Red Army officers who put up an entirely convincing argument for the "thousand year journey to democracy". Obviously, being in the Army they could be said to have their own angle. But does that same bias not apply to us? Likewise travelling through Syria, most of the people cared not for politics - they kept in line, obeyed the law and their lives were pretty much ok.

In Iran, Syria, Communist countries etc etc the governments rule through the 'will of the people' - be it Revolutionary principles or not. Did the Iranians not exercise the truest form of democracy when the people rose and overthrew a dictator? Did the Cubans not do likewise? They chose how to be ruled after that.

My overall point is: For us, our system is the best. For them, they feel their system is the best.

Oh brother. Either that or most of us knows that Syria is just like Iran. No Democracy and no civil rights.


No comparison, actually.

Yes, because having two major parties that both have the same economic system policy is EXACTLY like having just one candidate to vote for. :rolleyes:

If the American people wanted communism or socialism, a communist or socialist party would be in power. But they don't, so it's not. Get the fuck over it.

Hear, hear!