I remain a fan of Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani. As far as I can tell the link leads to an authentic web page he sponsors.

Now it is very odd that Paul Bremer has trouble communicating directly with Sistani. I just asked him what he thought of various electoral systems designed to prevent tyranny of the majority.

I got the link from the always wonderful Matthew Yglesias
who points out the q and a page. Why doesn't the vatican have something like that ?

Anyway not only is Ali Sistani wired and accessible, he also is the one in favor of attempting true democracy now. Maybe I am so enthused because he seems to be the only person in the universe who has managed to make George Bush compromise on anything.

Bremer is trying to spin their disagrement as Sistani is an advocate for the Shiites and he (Bremer) is aiming for balance, but the now withdrawn CPO-IGC proposal was for fake democracy in which the US nominates people who nominate committees to hold "caucuses" to send delegates back to the center. These would not be the sort of caucuses they are having in Iowa.

To me it is fairly clear that the reaon the Bush administration does not want elections in Iraq before the elections here is that they want to keep the power for a while. That is, I think the technical problem of making voter lists in a country where almost everyone has a ration card is a fake issue. Also the tyranny of the majority risk can be avoided with a bit of gerrymandering (nothing extreme like the did in Texas would be needed).

Bremer and the people telling him what to do (Bush ? more likely Cheney) clearly want to hold onto their not democratically based power in Iraq for a while. I think this might be best, but it is strange that a grand Ayatollah is arguing for true democracy now and the US for democracy later. It is not strange that Sistani seems to be speaking frankly and the CPO to be spinning like crazy.

The current proposal to have real elections in Baghdad and the Shiite South but not in the rest of the country is so crazy I didn't even imagine it as a joke. How could they come up with such an idea

1) there really is a census problem in Kurdish controlled areas.

Might be part of it. They don't have ration cards

2) have real elections in part of the country but not the rest is a compromise. They don't want a confrontation with Sistani but would be humiliated by giving in.

This is so dumb that it might be right. The point is that the Bush administration has never compromised before. Maybe just the thought of not getting their way on something is tying them into knots.

3) They believe that Sistani cares only about Shi'ites so this will be fine and dandy with him.

This seems to me to be buying into their own spin. They make a tactical argument to impugn the motives of someone who disagrees with them, then convince themselves. Sounds like the Bush administration to me.

4) What must be avoided at all costs are votes in the Sunni triangle where the Ba'ath party has strong support.

This would mean that the Bush administration does not accept democracy. If some people would vote for the wrong party, they must not be allowed to vote. This is disturbing because the Ba'ath party would not win an election or anything. It seems to be unacceptable to the Bush administration to have *any* Iraqi legislators who attack Bush. I don't think it's a good idea to keep the problem underground by blocking democratic representation for the, to put it very gently, misguided Iraqis who are nostalgic for Saddam. For one thing I think I am more confident than the Bush administration that they are few in number.

Anyway if I weren't an atheist I would thank God for Ayatollah Sistani.