Today in Syria holds parliamentary elections, which involved 3.5 thousand candidates for 250 parliamentary seats, but it is recognized (and expected) that the attitude to them is ambiguous. The reaction of the West once again exposes the double standards.
Much of the opposition, as well as Germany and the United States, did not recognize the elections as legitimate, because to vote only citizens living in Damascus-controlled territories.
The position is at least strange, as the elections to the people’s Council held in 13 out of 15 provinces. With the exception of raqqa and Idlib, which is under the control of the militants of terrorist groups.
The West considers their conduct to be premature, but the Syrian Constitution provides for mandatory elections every four years. Besides, the Syrians themselves lay to the election hopes.
Of course, to some extent, elections in Syria can be criticized, but you should understand that ATS is a step towards democratization, which is so vehemently, recently, began to perform in the West.
The situation is commented on by analyst and former U.S. Senate foreign policy James Jatras. “Everyone, including the United States and its allies say they want to see in Syria, the development of democracy. We should welcome every step of the way. Even if due to the ongoing military conflict elections may not work in all regions of the country.”
In his opinion, this is another example of what all determines the relationship of local authorities with Washington. “If we (the US) supported by the government, and we welcome the elections in this country, regardless of whether their results recognized as valid or not,” added the expert.
In defense of the Syrian elections is a concrete example is Iraq, where in December 2004 about a month summed up the results of parliamentary elections. At this time in the country fighting continued, and “ALK-Qaeda” was gaining momentum. Then it got to serious popular protests, which were attended by about 20 thousand people. However, George W. Bush, who at that time was President of the United States, is not perturbed about the legitimacy of the vote, moreover, he was “personally very happy that the Iraqi people was such an important milestone”.
Attacks and denial is a predictable phenomenon. Otherwise, no, because “choice is legitimate only when the entire process is controlled by the Americans”. So can be said about the Crimean referendum. Typed too many examples, but on the face of the obvious expression familiar to us double standards.
Regardless of the election results and from the external pressure exerted on the process is definitely a step to resolving the situation. And if not held elections in the main den of the terrorists, it does not mean that they are not legitimate.
May they not perfect from the point of view of coverage throughout the state, but the turnout is no problem. Voting was extended to midnight to accommodate those who came were able to participate in the process of democratization of Syria.
Anton Orlovsky
