After carefully reading through the debate between Alex Callinicos and Gilbert Achcar in Znet, the controversies, to me, were rather different tactical approaches and preferences than contradictions on principles.

In the letter to Gilbert (on Jan 13, 2005), Alex plainly admitted that whether or not to take part in elections under foreign occupation or colonial rule is a tactical question, not one of principle. In his reply (on Jan 19, 2005), Gilbert was glad that Alex agreed with him "that the elections being held under foreign occupation is not relevant per se."

From the very beginning, Gilbert seems to consciously evade touching on the question of "illegitimacy" or "falsity" of holding elections under foreign occupation and manipulation as the case in Iraq. Instead, he seems to over emphasise that the elections were forced on to Bush and Bremer by the mass protests that the Shia Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called just under a year ago.

No doubt, holding the elections to replace US designation was some sort of a victory for the Iraqi people especially the Shia, as a result of a reluctant backtrack by the Bush Administration, but this did not automatically guarantee the prospect of a free and fair elections as promised by US and its allies, before the Bush administration gave up its strategic objective of securing control of Iraq for the long haul, as correctly pointed out by Gilbert.

Hence, no one could stop the Iraqi people from taking part in any elections, just like no one could stop them from boycotting or undermining the same. The Shia population and others might claim that, as proclaimed by the banners: "Brother Iraqis, the future of Iraq is in your hands. Elections are the ideal way to expel the occupier from Iraq" and "Brother Iraqis, your vote in the elections is better than a bullet in battle."

The various resistance groups, other than those "utterly reactionary fanatics", who believe in bullets rather than ballots, also have the legitimate rights to revolt against the heavy-handed occupation of their country. In this context, it is obviously wrong to say "that the elections being held under foreign occupation is not relevant per se," whether by means of ballots or by means of bullets, or the combination of both, foreign occupation must never be forgotten as a qualifying factor and an important and dominant one too.

Strategic importance

The fundamental difference between Alex and Gilbert was concerning the strategic importance given to elections or insurgency. To Alex, as he stated in his letter to Gilbert, "What has created such a crisis for the Americans in Iraq is neither Sistani's campaign for elections nor Zarqawi's beheading. It is, as Walden Bello has so eloquently argued since the first Falluja crisis last April, the guerrilla insurgency mainly in the Sunni areas."

Nevertheless, he didn't deny the contribution of the elections, in his words: "The elections wrested from the US by the demonstrations a year ago have contributed to this crisis, but are not at the heart of it."

Gilbert, on the contrary, as pointed out by Alex: "Endorses Sistani's as 'the most fruitful strategy in opposing the occupation'", or as confessed by Gilbert: "This is only my personal opinion; I do think that the mass mobilisations he called for were clearly more effective in forcing Washington to retreat than the armed actions. This does not mean that the armed actions in Iraq are ineffective."

Precisely due to the weight and significance he gives to the elections, he totally neglects the fact that the US has developed a strategy that seeks to use the elections to legitimise the occupation, pressurise the European Union and the United Nations to become more involved in Iraq, as analysed by Alex.

He instead argues that military offensives against Najaf and Falluja were designed by Washington to stir up chaos and delegitimise the elections, and warns that attempts at derailing the elections and delegitimising them in advance can play into the hands of the US occupation, and it is dead wrong for the movement and the left to condemn the elections in advance, thus probably putting us at odds with the great majority of the Iraqi people.

To him, undoubtedly, this means that the most urgent task outside of Iraq is to supplement the Jan 30 elections, and the legitimate actions of resistance to the US occupation and its allies in Iraq, with building as widely and effectively as possible for the March 19 global antiwar demonstration.

To "supplement" the Jan 30 elections, does it mean we should refrain from denouncing or even criticising the election? Or should we denounce and criticise those who boycott and undermine the elections? Are we allowed to touch on the "illegitimacy" and "falsity" of the elections held under occupation and manipulation of the US and its allies?

Even if as reminded by Gilbert, it is indisputable that the overwhelming majority, if not the totality, of the Iraqi Shia masses (two-thirds of the Iraqi population, and the poorest of the poor) badly want three things: the elections, majority rule and the occupation troops out, is it dead wrong for the antiwar movement to expose the true nature of the so-called elections/democracy under the control and manipulation of US and its allies, to warn against the danger of "carving up of the country along sectarian lines, by a de facto , if not de jure democracy", and to voice out protest against the occupation of the US and its allies in Iraq?

To condemn or denounce US and its allies and the false "elections/democracy" manipulated by them to legitimise their presence is by no means to condemn or denounce the Iraqi people who have taken part in an elections out of tactical consideration or due to impractical expectations or illusions towards the elections.

Alex's doubt that such elections would produce a legitimate democratic regime in Iraq is well-founded, and in fact concurs with Gilbert's opinion that Washington favours elections only if and when they are most likely to be won by its henchmen.

In case "there is a relatively authentic popular vote at the end of January" (this should be a welcome outcome to Gilbert) added Alex, the anti-war movement should demand that the Americans and their allies withdraw immediately, allowing the new assembly to select a government that reflects the real wishes of the Iraq people.

Strictly speaking, Alex is somewhat inconsistent in harbouring an illusion on the outcome of the illegitimate regime produced by the elections under US occupation and manipulation, but at the same time, Gilbert also fails to convince the readers that his defence of the legitimacy of the January elections and the call to supplement it are necessary.

However, the debate as a whole is very constructive, and has set a good example of a comradely and friendly exchange between people who make real arguments, instead of throwing various epithets in each other's faces and distorting each other's views, as observed by Gilbert. Many thanks to Alex and Gilbert for their contributions in the debate, criticism and correction of my comments are most welcomed.