Iraq’s Elections
By
The elections in Iraq
held on January 30 were a success for both the Iraqis
and the Bush administration. But the key will be
how well both build on this success, as its achievement
could be squandered easily over the next few months.
Twenty months after the toppling of Saddam in the
name of democracy, Iraq finally got its first free
election. The election was not the most ideal. The
use of a single constituency for the entire country
meant that a low turnout among one community would
mean very little electoral success. This has affected
the Sunnis, who were much less enthusiastic about
this vote than the Shia and Kurds.
The violence and chaos also meant that there was
no proper campaign, either in person, or in the
form of political rallies, or in the electronic
and press media. There was no real clash of ideas,
and the main factor people were voting on was ethnic
or sectarian identity. The main Shia slate has already
claimed victory, although no official vote count
has been released. Iraqis are just learning the
ropes of how to conduct elections, and the vote
counting was supposed to take up to ten days to
get a result. Assuming the Shia slate is correct,
they will be in a position to pick the new Prime
Minister and set the agenda for writing the constitution.
Writing the constitution is the most important task
of the new 275-seat National Assembly.
They will have to produce a document that will be
credible with all Iraqis and represents a break
with Iraq’s dysfunctional past. For the Shia, they
must resist the temptation to use their electoral
strength to create a “tyranny of the majority”,
a regime that is both democratic and oppressive
to its minorities. After suffering under Saddam
disproportionately for the last twenty years, the
Shia should not treat their fellow Iraqis with retribution.
The correct course is to create an Iraq that treats
all of its citizens with equality and justice. For
the Kurds, they have significant power in the new
setup, but they are still keeping one eye on the
exit. If the new Iraq is not sufficiently protective
of their interests, they are still keeping the option
of trying to have an independent state.
The US will not be happy about that, as it promised
such an outcome would not happen to Turkey, and
this could lead to a confrontation if the Kurds
push the issue. The Transitional Law that is operating
right now states that the new constitution will
have to be approved in a referendum in October 2005.
If any three Iraqi provinces vote against the constitution,
it will have failed. This is a safety valve that
allows the three Kurdish provinces an effective
veto over the new constitution. It also happens
to allow the three Sunni provinces the same thing.
Given this veto power the National Assembly will
have to create a document that is acceptable to
the Sunnis and Kurds. The Shia are already stating
some positive things.
They have declared that they do not want an Iranian-style
theocracy, and will not put Shia clergy into political
office. They also intend to allow Sunnis to participate
in the deliberations, even if the Sunnis don’t win
many seats. For Bush, this election may lead to
a reasonable exit strategy. If the new government
has enough credibility to create public order, then
the US presence could wind down. In the meantime,
Bush is clearly elated by the success of the election.
Whether the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong
morally, or right or wrong from the standpoint of
US interests, is debatable, and I would say it was
wrong on both counts. But with this election, we
must conclude that the invasion of Iraq may turn
out to have been in the interest of the vast majority
of the people of Iraq itself. Comments can reach
me at nali@socal.rr.com.
