Americans of good will who care about both the Iraqi people and U.S. national interests should celebrate the fact that the elections took place under difficult circumstances. Iraqi candidates, election officials and voters showed determination and, in many cases, breathtaking courage. The Iraqi police and others charged with the heavy security burden served with distinction.
But my sense of realism and experience with Iraq’s troubled history tell me to reserve judgment about the election results. Even at this early stage, it appears that those elected to the National Assembly are heavily weighted in favor of religiously guided Shi'ites and Kurds. Both groups suffered greatly under the Saddam regime, and both are strongly motivated to assure that there is no return to his style of rule. However, both groups are probably represented out of proportion to their share of the population.
The elections to the National Assembly proceeded under circumstances open to challenge on various grounds, but they were preferable to continuing with an appointed interim government. The victors may demand the spoils and usher in new forms of tyranny. Or, they may choose to reach out to other elements in the population -- secular Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs and Turkmen. The potential is there for national reconciliation. Will they follow a course of statesmanship?
We shall see.
It is possible to craft some measures to assure more equitable Sunni and secular Shi’ite representation in institutions resulting from the election. A three person presidential council must be elected by the National Assembly to represent Iraqi sovereignty and to name a prime minister. The next steps would be selecting a new cabinet to replace the Iraqi Interim Government and a committee to draft a permanent constitution. Members of those bodies can be drawn from qualified persons who did not go through the electoral process. Fortunately, there are still moderate and pragmatic Iraqis who seem willing to make the necessary compromises. For the Sunni Arabs especially, but for other Iraqis as well, this requires great courage.
In the short term, at least, the Iraqi people will judge the success of the elections by indicators that have little to do with the rhetoric of democracy. Will the resulting government be better able than Iyad Allawi’s government to expedite training of the Iraqi police, National Guard and army and to provide more hours of electricity, more jobs and clean water?
We shall see.
In short, elections are only a starting point for rebuilding the Iraqi state and keeping the Iraqi nation intact.
In another time and another part of the world, the U.S. government hailed the results of another election in a country in the midst of turmoil.
On September 3, 1967, the New York Times reported that “U.S. officials were surprised and heartened at the size of the turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.”
The New York Times concluded, “[T]he size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation's election based on the incomplete returns…”
The burden in Iraq is also heavy for the U.S. and other foreign military forces, diplomatic establishments, and workers in the reconstruction effort. They are supporting a political process that marks an uncertain start on the road to greater political legitimacy and stability. At worst, Iraq’s elections could bring a new tyranny to power and greatly complicate U.S. efforts to fight terror in Iraq and elsewhere. We only mislead Iraqis and ourselves by placing too much weight on individual events.
We must hope that this time, the Iraqi people with our help will do much better than the people of Vietnam.
David L. Mack is Vice President of the Middle East Institute. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and US Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, and also held diplomatic postings in Iraq, Jordan, Jerusalem, Lebanon, Libya, and Tunisia.
Disclaimer: Assertions and opinions in this Commentary are solely those of the above-mentioned author(s) and do not reflect necessarily the views of the Middle East Institute, which expressly does not take positions on Middle East policy.
"...to promote knowledge of the Middle East in America and strengthen understanding of the United States by the people and governments of the region."
-- MEI Mission Statement
Related Resources
Countries
Regional Issues
Americans of good will who care about both the Iraqi people and U.S. national interests should celebrate the fact that the elections took place under difficult circumstances. Iraqi candidates, election officials and voters showed determination and, in many cases, breathtaking courage. The Iraqi police and others charged with the heavy security burden served with distinction.
But my sense of realism and experience with Iraq’s troubled history tell me to reserve judgment about the election results. Even at this early stage, it appears that those elected to the National Assembly are heavily weighted in favor of religiously guided Shi'ites and Kurds. Both groups suffered greatly under the Saddam regime, and both are strongly motivated to assure that there is no return to his style of rule. However, both groups are probably represented out of proportion to their share of the population.
The elections to the National Assembly proceeded under circumstances open to challenge on various grounds, but they were preferable to continuing with an appointed interim government. The victors may demand the spoils and usher in new forms of tyranny. Or, they may choose to reach out to other elements in the population -- secular Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs and Turkmen. The potential is there for national reconciliation. Will they follow a course of statesmanship?
We shall see.
It is possible to craft some measures to assure more equitable Sunni and secular Shi’ite representation in institutions resulting from the election. A three person presidential council must be elected by the National Assembly to represent Iraqi sovereignty and to name a prime minister. The next steps would be selecting a new cabinet to replace the Iraqi Interim Government and a committee to draft a permanent constitution. Members of those bodies can be drawn from qualified persons who did not go through the electoral process. Fortunately, there are still moderate and pragmatic Iraqis who seem willing to make the necessary compromises. For the Sunni Arabs especially, but for other Iraqis as well, this requires great courage.
In the short term, at least, the Iraqi people will judge the success of the elections by indicators that have little to do with the rhetoric of democracy. Will the resulting government be better able than Iyad Allawi’s government to expedite training of the Iraqi police, National Guard and army and to provide more hours of electricity, more jobs and clean water?
We shall see.
In short, elections are only a starting point for rebuilding the Iraqi state and keeping the Iraqi nation intact.
In another time and another part of the world, the U.S. government hailed the results of another election in a country in the midst of turmoil.
On September 3, 1967, the New York Times reported that “U.S. officials were surprised and heartened at the size of the turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.”
The New York Times concluded, “[T]he size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation's election based on the incomplete returns…”
The burden in Iraq is also heavy for the U.S. and other foreign military forces, diplomatic establishments, and workers in the reconstruction effort. They are supporting a political process that marks an uncertain start on the road to greater political legitimacy and stability. At worst, Iraq’s elections could bring a new tyranny to power and greatly complicate U.S. efforts to fight terror in Iraq and elsewhere. We only mislead Iraqis and ourselves by placing too much weight on individual events.
We must hope that this time, the Iraqi people with our help will do much better than the people of Vietnam.
David L. Mack is Vice President of the Middle East Institute. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and US Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, and also held diplomatic postings in Iraq, Jordan, Jerusalem, Lebanon, Libya, and Tunisia.