Iraq’s landmark election
UNITED NATIONS — The clarion call for Free and Fair elections has emerged as a global mantra. The UN has long pressed for such exercises in democracy in places as disparate as East Timor to West Africa. So when the Iraqi’s held their third free and fair election this year — in spite of the terrorist intimidation and violence — they should be firmly congratulated for exercising their democratic rights. Ballots won out over bullets with a historically significant and impressive 70 percent plus voter turnout.
The election process for Iraq’s new parliament was daunting –hundreds of political parties and thousands of candidates put forth their plans and program before the 15 million voters. Five main coalitions representing a plethora of political parties from the secular to the religious have vied for votes. When the dust settles, 275 newly minted members of a free Iraqi parliament will go to Baghdad and form a new government.
Iraq remains an ethnic and religious quilt — it’s not so simple thinking that the country is overwhelmingly Muslim. The majority Shiite Muslims in the south and the non-Arab Kurds in the north have so far dominated the political process in Baghdad since the fall of Saddam. Clearly the minority Sunni Arabs (those who profited most by Saddam’s rule and form the bulk of the insurgency), must be persuaded to participate politically. A small and ancient Christian community is caught in between.
Critics and especially the increasingly shrill leftwing voices in the USA will glibly say “Sure but they voted after we invaded and now occupy them! That’s not a free election.”
First of all such comments insultingly imply that the Iraqis were better under the dictator Saddam Hussein (a distinct minority will certainly agree) and that somehow the U.S. led liberation of Iraq was wrong. Thus even having a free election while there is an ongoing American and Coalition occupation doesn’t count somehow — I suppose the free elections in Germany and Japan in the late 1940’s after the Second World War but under the Allied occupation were somehow not real either?
Second to imply that the Iraqi political parties — ranging from the hard line Islamic, to high octane nationalist, communist and a gaggle of other political mixes are somehow American puppets or puddles simply does not appreciate the rich (and still very volatile) political bouillabaisse which will comprise the new parliament. Quite frankly many of these parties are anti-American and will pose a thorny problem for us in the coming year.
Creating a workable political solution remains a fleeting goal.
Third, such sentiments disparage and berate the sacrifices of American and coalition forces who have been in Iraq for less than three years, but have achieved some pretty impressive socio/political successes. More than 2,100 American servicemen and women and made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and many thousands of more have been wounded. To use the hackney liberal argument “We support the troops but not the war” misses another point too. The troops are there to provide security for the free exercise of political opinion and to rebuild.
Still realistically the political math goes beyond Baghdad on the Euphrates to Washington on the Potomac. Political calculations presage that during 2006 there will be phased withdrawals of American and British forces. This remains a near given since the whole operation was premised on what has already successfully transpired — three landmark elections in 2005. Combined coalition forces now number 170,000 — 30,000 U.S. troops will pull out over the next months as security is transferred to combat ready Iraqi units.
But now the real crunch comes –do we pull out troops based on the timetable of America’s mid-term Congressional elections in 2006 or do we withdraw forces based on the very sober military calculation of the reduced security threat on the ground in Iraq? Obviously any craven politico would take the quick fix whereas a serious statesman would buck the changeable opinion polls and pick the proper time and place.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the Times of London that any hasty withdrawal risked plunging the country into a chaos. “Those who advocate an early withdrawal do not know what is at stake. The huge investment in blood and money sacrificed by the U.S. could be squandered. This is the time for patience.”
Will security conditions favor substantial withdrawals in six months? Perhaps, but you can’t set a timer or post your intentions. Yet the pieces are now in place for the long sought political solution. Iraqis have traded a brutal dictator for a fractious democracy, it’s their task to make it work.
John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense
issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com. |
