January 29, 2005
Iraqi Elections
To read Fouad Ajami tomorrow's elections in Iraq are truly exciting:
Behold these elections: they are not a prelude to civil war, as some of our sages continually warn. They are the substitute for a civil war. Indeed, the remarkable thing about the Shiites has been their restraint in the face of the terror that the remnants of the old regime and the jihadists have thrown at them. It is their leaders and their mosques and their weddings and their religious gatherings that have been the steady targets of the terror. It is their faith that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his band of killers continue to dismiss as a heresy at odds with Islam's "purity." Men are not angels. The Shiite restraint has rested on the hope that redemption shall come at the ballot box.
We needn't be afraid of a Shiite electoral victory. The scarecrow that stayed America's hand in the first Gulf War ought to be seen for what it is. There is no "sister republic" of the Iranian theocracy in Iraq's future. The religious scholars in Najaf know that theirs is a country that differs from Iran; it is a checkered country of multiple communities. The Shiite secularists know this as well. Besides, the Iranian state next door offers no panacea today, only terrible economic and cultural sterility. It has been Iraq's luck that Ayatollah Sistani was there when most needed. A jurist of deeply quietist bent who embodies Shiism's historical aversion to political redemptionism, he has reined in the passions of his community. He has held out the hope that history could be changed without large-scale violence, and without millenarianism. Grant the old man his due.
I was also surprised to read that Michael Rubin, who's been very critical of CPA (especially Amb. Bremmer) is similarly impressed:
On the streets of Baghdad, the campaign is also in full swing. Iraqis ponder voting by the number. There are more than 250 election slates, representing approximately 7,000 candidates. A lottery assigned each slate a ballot position between 101 and 365. Driving to Kadhimiya, a largely Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad, I see walls covered with posters for Slate 169, the Iraqi National Alliance. The posters alternately show a burning candle or the images of Sistani and the late Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq Sadr superimposed over the number 169. Streets along Baghdad's now-decrepit Abu Nawas corniche are emblazoned with posters advertising the Constitutional Monarchy Movement's leader, Sharif Ali bin Hussein, a Sunni businessman who has managed to attract significant tribal support. In a sign of tolerance and political maturity, competing campaigns do not obstruct one another's posters.To Iraqis, the elections are no longer theoretical. With voting less than a week away, there is electricity in the air. Pundits and politicians can discuss whether the elections should go forward, but for most Iraqis, such debates are moot. Democracy may be a process, but it is one in which Iraqis are ready to take the first step.
Daniel Pipes however, is still negative about the important of the elections (he believes that freedom must come before democracy):Before they take place, the country needs to learn the habits of democracy and civil society – the rule of law, minority rights, voluntary associations, loyal opposition, and so on. Elections should begin with the legislative branch and at the municipal level. The interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, should be given a chance to take control of the country before ethnic and other fissures can rear their heads. Shi‘is need to get used to participating in power or else the tyranny of the majority looms as a real danger.
In all, I see this as a classic instance of American impatience. It's been a mere 22 months since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; elections for chief of government should take place more like 22 years later. (January 26, 2005)
As a naysayer Pipes isn't surprising he's been consistent on this point. I was surprised, though, at the negative view of the elections presented by Lawrence Kaplan:
Washington can rightly celebrate the upcoming elections. Yet unless one defines democracy solely in terms of a calendar date, Jan. 30 will not bring democracy to Iraq. To have democracy, after all, one must first have a state in which to practice it. And the precondition of a state is its ability to provide security for its citizens. Alas, neither U.S. nor Iraqi forces have even secured Iraq's lifeline to the outside world. Indeed, things have gotten so bad on the airport road that last month the U.S. Embassy closed the highway to the swollen ranks of American officialdom in Iraq. Henceforth, Americans working in the Green Zone would be airlifted to their airplanes.
I don't have any wisdom of my own to add. I'm just surprised on the tone of two of these experts. Posted by SoccerDad at January 29, 2005 10:26 PM | TrackBack