Iraq’s Election

The radio newsreader noted that Sunday marked, “only the second Iraqi general election since the U.S. invaded the country in 2003.” That would be two more real elections than have been placed in a row in any other Arab country.

The radio newsreader noted that Sunday marked, “only the second Iraqi general election since the U.S. invaded the country in 2003.” That would be two more real elections than have been placed in a row in any other Arab country.

We have long cautioned against calling countries “democratic” or “democracies” just because they run the population through the voting booth every so often-Syria and Egypt just don’t qualify. The sine qua non of a “real” election is that the current ruler can lose. And in that context, a real election requires that candidates be able to form multiple parties with competing views of the future and have access to an unfettered press/media. It also requires that the public have the right of free association and safe access to a secret ballot.

Even then, one real election doesn’t make it; even two is just getting off the ground. Backsliding is common. We’re already looking toward the next Iraqi election to ratify the trend.

But in the meantime, what to make of Iraq in 2010? Anyone who wanted representation in the election could find a party to suit: Sunni, Shi’ite, Kurdish, or mixed-secular or religious. It appears the percentage of voters was high; calm determination and purple fingers were much in evidence.

The national table was better set than last time-the Sunnis turned out to vote, despite having a large number of candidates rejected by the election board as “Ba’athist.” And radical Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr urged Iraqis to vote to “pave the way for liberation” from U.S. forces. In 2003, Sadr had fomented anti-American violence among Iraqi Shi’ites and his militias were responsible for a wave of anti-Sunni attacks before being defeated and Sadr slunk off to Tehran. So this is an improvement. [Although Iran spent huge sums of money both “buying” votes for Iranian-supported parties and arming militias.] The 2005 Sunni boycott fueled the anti-Shi’ite violence that surged in 2006-07, necessitating the American-led counter-surge.

Next will come weeks (months?) of negotiating a governing coalition-no party is likely to have enough votes to govern outright. There is fear that a vacuum will allow violent organizations to try to undermine and/or overthrow the election results and those people had their say Sunday as well. More than 30 Iraqis were killed at the end of weeks of low-level violence intended to intimidate potential voters, or to signal that despite the voters, they intend to take what they want.

This time, however, the Iraqis have a better trained, better equipped and better motivated police and army. As American troops keep largely to their bases, the real test of Iraq’s ability to maintain its fledgling consensual government will be in the hands of the Iraqi guardians of peace and security. Their role as a national force will be tested.

We will also be tested. President Obama congratulated the Iraqi people on their vote-and is hoping our combat troops can make a quick exit over the summer. We hope so too, but the United States has to be prepared to wait, to help, and to fight if necessary to preserve what now appears to qualify as a fledgling tentative consensual government moving toward an infant democracy (enough qualifiers?). Iraq’s new governing form can no more be expected to survive and thrive without support-including military support where needed-than any other infant could be expected to survive in hostile territory.

And Iraq sits in very hostile territory-next to Iran and in the center of the Arab Middle East-where consensual government is a rare bird.

A cheer, then, for the American President who didn’t quit when others called the war “lost,” the American troops who held the line, and the Iraqi people who took advantage of the narrow opening.