Iraqi Elections

The official results of the first post-Saddam election in Iraq are coming out. Supporters of the administration have called the election a great success, simply by taking place. It was further asserted that the fact of the election was a rebuke of the terrorists causing so much turmoil inside Iraq. Reality, as usual, is more complex.

Was the election a success for the burgeoning Iraqi republic? Certainly. The fact that throughout much of the country, the election was conducted smoothly, peacefully, and with heavy turnout is a ringing endorsement that democracy can take root there. That's the positive spin on the election, but there is another side to the story. The big winners in the election were Shiite parties associated with fundamentalist Islamic clerics, such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who are allied to Iran, hardly what the administration wanted. Furthermore, the US-backed list, headed by Prime Minister Allawi, finished a distant 3rd in the final tally. So, not only will Allawi and his followers be out of power, they will likely not even be a minority presence in the coalition that will be formed between the Shiites and Kurds.

In Sunni areas, the heartland of the insurgency, voter turnout was dismal, as low as 2% in the province of Al-Anbar, due to fear of violence and a self-imposed boycott. This will result in the Sunni population being severely under-represented in the new assembly, which has significant implications. The insurgency is fueled, at least in part, by Sunni fears of oppression at the hands of Shiites. (The Sunnis have long been the minority branch of Islam in Iraq, but have held the reins of power for 1000 years through repressive dictators like Saddam.) By keeping Sunni voters from the voting booths, the terrorists have helped create the very situation many Sunnis feared, namely a legislature dominated by the Shiites and with little representation for them. This can only serve to fuel the insurgency. Contrary to the administration's assertion that the election is a victory over the terrorists, the election could well be a victory for the terrorists.

Beyond adding fire to the terrorists, the absence of Sunnis in the new assembly has direct implications for the future of the fledgling republic. The purpose of this election was to elect a temporary assembly whose primary task will be to draw up a constitution. That constitution is due to be put before the Iraqi people in October in a referendum. If 2/3 of the voters in the Sunni heartland vote no, the referendum will be defeated, delaying the approval of a constitution, and therefore delaying the solidification of the new government.

For those who feel elections in themselves are harbingers of peace, the BBC reminds its readers of history.

Elections do not bring peace by themselves in a time of civil war, and a civil war on a grand scale is what the rebels are trying to instigate.

We saw that in El Salvador in 1982, when voters crammed into the polling booths while guerrillas were being hit by helicopter gunships on the volcanoes that surround the capital San Salvador.

The elections went off successfully. The civil war went on for another eight years.

It is right to celebrate the successful election in Iraq. But a long road remains. The election raises many questions. Will the US sit by and allow its soldiers to die for what may become a Shiite Islamic state allied to Iran? Will the absence of Sunnis in the newly elected assembly exacerbate the insurgency, further destabilizing that part of Iraq? Will the majority Shiites bring Sunnis into the temporary government despite their small representation in the assembly, vital to bringing Sunni support to the new constitution? With the Kurds in a position of power in the new assembly, will the secessionist movement in the Iraqi north fade? So, while this election is an important first step, it is only a first step.