Manufacturing consent

Does hype and spin make the Iraqi elections successful? Omayma Abdel-Latif asks Iraqi observers

---

Iraq elections 2005

"Democracy triumphs in brave Iraq," read a typical headline in the Western media covering the Iraqi elections held on 30 January. "Iraqi democracy will set a global example" trumpeted another. Other banners were equally exuberant -- "Iraq has vanquished fear" and "The force of freedom was felt throughout Iraq."

Indeed, the West hailed the Sunday vote as a "resounding success". Victory speeches by United States President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair echoed the same sentiment even before the actual results came out. "The Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists," President Bush declared soon after the closing of the vote.

The international media -- particularly in the US and Britain -- were awash with upbeat stories praising "the victory of democracy" and "the defeat of terrorists". Spin doctors in the Bush administration and at Downing Street were trying their best to present the elections as a battle between the anti-democratic forces of evil on the one hand and the Iraqi people protected by the occupation forces on the other.

Even newspapers which campaigned against the war on Iraq like the British Independent, or that which wrote in favour of an election delay such as the New York Times, ran positive commentaries of the Sunday vote. The bad news emanating from Iraq were either buried in the inside pages or were never mentioned at all. Most newspapers turned a blind eye to the big questions. Whether or not the minimum international standards of fair and free elections were met and in what way the elections contained the deplorable insecurity in the country were not addressed. Even the most disturbing notion that Iraqis are voting along sectarian and ethnic lines, were hardly tackled in the Western media coverage of Sunday's vote.

This avalanche of what was mostly regarded as spin stories triggered fresh questions about the politics of covering Iraq. It was not clear whether this kind of coverage was an indication that the press had been duped into helping the White House with its "psy-ops" media war.

A distinguished Iraqi analyst who is currently visiting Washington spoke of a "state of euphoria" dominating the administration and right-wing think tanks over the Iraqi elections. "The Sunday vote gave Bush and his neo-cons team a breathing space in Iraq," explained Ghassan Al-Attyia, head of the Iraqi Independent Bloc. "They appeared to be the big winners in the Iraqi vote and no one wants to spoil the party atmosphere by any criticism or even posing questions about what next for Iraq and the US," Al-Attyia added in a telephone interview from Washington.

For most Iraqi analysts hyping up the Sunday poll was only a continuation of a tradition which began with the launch of the US-dictated self-governance process a year ago. Every phase in the political process was turned into a media-staged event. It began with the fall of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad; the formation of the Iraqi Governing Council in March 2003; the transfer of power on 30 June; the formation of the Interim Iraqi Government; and the departure of the US civil administrator Paul Bremer.

The Sunday poll was just the latest chapter in this process of turning each of those milestones into a spectacular event. Even those Iraqi politicians who supported the elections believed that the Americans needed to present Sunday's elections as a victory of Western values. "[Bush and Blair] had to present it as a momentous event in order to sell it to their public," Mahmoud Osman, a prominent Kurdish politician told the Weekly on Tuesday. "The Bush administration," he added, "wants to capitalise on this event as a sign that their policies in Iraq are a great success."

But this deluge of spin was indeed a deliberate undertaking. Last week, the New York Times disclosed that an aggressive White House communications strategy was to be pursued during the weeks ahead "in order to frame the risky Iraqi election in the best possible light". The goal, according to one Bush adviser "was not only to lower expectations but to avoid any definition of success".

The Western media, however, was not alone in its hype. In a break with the overriding anti-election perceptions, some Arab media commentators presented the Sunday vote as a "great triumph". Both the Dubai-based Al- Arabiya satellite television channel and the London-based Saudi-funded daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat supported holding the election on time. Both also offered a very positive coverage with special emphasis on "the millions" of voters who flocked to the polls while at the same time completely ignored those who did not or could not get to the ballot boxes. Coverage of Iraq's southern and northern areas came at the expense of covering places like Ramadi, Anbar and Falluja.

But some, however, cautioned against raising the ceiling of expectations which could result in a backlash both in Iraq and in Washington. "It is a catch 22 situation," says Al-Attyia, "if Washington continues to sell the political process it initiated in Iraq as a victory, then the American public will ask if it were so successful why are we stuck there."

For the Iraqi people, the situation is much worse. "Every time a political event is presented as momentous and unprecedented, the Iraqi people's expectations sky-rocketed," Al-Attyia explained. "But when the euphoria dissipates, they realise it was all part of the spin which has become the defining characteristic of the media coverage of Iraq," he added. This is a view shared by some Iraqi officials. Speaking to the Weekly on Tuesday, Hajem Al-Husseini, Iraq's industry minister, cautioned against exaggerating the impact the elections would have on both Iraq and the region. "The success or failure of the vote, he explained, will be determined by whether or not such a process put Iraq on the road to real democracy or to ultimate chaos."