A democratic Iraq?

Contemporary Review, April, 2005 by Allan Ramsay

If one makes a close study of a society different from one's own, one finds that institutions the very opposite of one's own are defended by the people to whom they belong with as much fervour as we defend ours. They do not seek to be delivered from them and endowed with something better. Self-government in fact does not mean responsible government: it means government by the authority you have been brought up to respect, because you and he take the obedience for granted, who is hallowed by all the dignity of tradition and religious belief and is a symbol of national pride and achievement.

  Dr Lucy Mair speaking in the 1930s about the government of Tanganyika,
          quoted by G.M Young in his essay on Walter Bagehot.

THE elections envisaged when the Coalition Authority handed over to an Interim Iraqi Government in June 2004 took place as scheduled on 30 January. As a result Iraq is now a fully sovereign country in which the sole legitimate authority is invested in an elected government. Its principle task is to draw up a constitution, agreed by a parliament representing each Iraqi community. This constitution will form the basis for further elections. The intention is that the whole process should be completed within a year.

The January elections took place in conditions which must be unprecedented, under what many Iraqis considered to be an unnecessarily prolonged and unwelcome military occupation and amid tight security which included a curfew, an embargo on civilian traffic and the temporary closure of Baghdad International Airport. For President Bush and Mr Blair they were a vindication of the decision to invade Iraq. They described them as a defeat for the insurgents and a victory in the 'War on Terror'. It is impossible to say how far President Bush's steadfastness in the preceding months, at a time when he himself was campaigning for re-election and things were going very badly indeed for the Coalition forces, might have encouraged Iraqis to vote. Certainly the Shia and Kurd communities seized their chance with both hands. Many will have voted in the belief that an elected government was the surest means of bringing the military occupation to an end, though none of the Iraqi party leaders in their public statements so far have given any indication that they are thinking of calling for an early withdrawal. On the whole there was little evidence of gratitude towards the Coalition. But that the ordinary Iraqi behaved courageously in taking the opportunity to vote is beyond question. The issue for the future is how far others are prepared to go in acknowledging the strength of public feeling thus demonstrated and allow the new Iraq to determine its own future.

The election results conformed to expectations. There was a high turnout in the Shia and Kurdish communities with the latter registering an 80 per cent turnout. The average nationwide was 65 per cent which is remarkable in the circumstances when one considers the apathy of most Western electorates. These figures are provided by the electoral authorities themselves and presumed to be accurate. Corroboration is not possible since the situation was too dangerous to allow international observers to be present. The turnout in the main Sunni areas was low, not above 16 per cent. This is disappointing but unsurprising, given the calls for a boycott on the part of Sunni leaders and the campaign of intimidation waged by the insurgents. There were allegations of fraud and corruption in places. But on the whole the elections were a remarkable feat of organization for the UN officials concerned and their Iraqi colleagues, including the Interim Authority. It was well done but it nevertheless reminds one of Dr Johnson's remark about a woman preaching in that it was surprising that it was done at all.

The results of the elections, when all votes had been counted, contained no surprises. The United Iraqi Alliance, a Shia religious grouping patronised by Ayatollah Ali Sistani polled highest at 48.2 per cent followed by the Kurdistani Alliance with 25.6 per cent. The Iraqi List party of the Interim Prime Minister Iyyad Allawi came third with 13.6 per cent, no doubt a reflection, not only of his perceived links with the Coalition authorities but also of a shift in Shia opinion away from the non-religious and secular ticket on which his party campaigned. No other party achieved double figures. How these results will work out in practice in terms of proportionality in government remains to be negotiated. It will take time and involve a good deal of horse trading. The outcome could be a relatively weak government though it is possible that the Shia parties might yet be able to settle their differences sufficiently to achieve a working majority. The point to be made at the outset is that all the parties are, without exception, alliances or coalitions representing a patchwork of interests, many of which might prove to be relatively short term. There is nothing necessarily durable about the political structure that is beginning to emerge and the new constitution might be markedly different from the present one. But it is undisputable that the net losers in terms of parliamentary representation were the Sunni communities.