From the Potomac to the Tigris: Iraq's election of ghosts

BEIRUT - There are plenty of reasons to be hopeful and worried about Sunday's election for an interim parliament in Iraq.

First the bad news: This is an election of and by invisible ghosts, and every possible result is riddled with problems. The election is badly hampered from the start by its illegitimate lineage. It has been spawned by an American-led military invasion, incubated in an American-led military occupation and administration, designed by a mildly credible condominium of Iraqi and U.N. officials working -- literally and figuratively -- under the gun of the United States, and administered by an interim Iraqi administration that has "made in Washington" stamped all over it.

Washington's track record in Iraq is romantically naïve and frighteningly amateurish. Most of the politically significant initiatives or decisions the United States has taken since April 2003 to put Iraq on the road to democracy have backfired, failed, been reversed or quietly dropped, or achieved only minimal credibility and results.

So there are no certain, easy, or quick solutions to the post-election dilemma the U.S. has created for itself in Iraq. If the U.S. military stays too long, it generates greater political resentment and armed resistance, in Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. If the U.S. army departs too soon, it risks unleashing a civil war and possible partition of Iraq, which spells trouble for the entire region. If Washington pulls off an orderly and clean election, it will create a Shiite-dominated, Iran-friendly political system

that frightens many Sunni-run or secular Arab neighbors (as Jordan's America-friendly King Abdullah II has already said publicly). Some in this region also worry about post-election tensions between Iraqis and Iranians, given the historical sensitivities between Persian and Arab Shiites.

It is also bad news that this is the world's first election conducted by ghosts and invisible people. Most candidates and potential voters do not make themselves clearly known in public, for fear of being killed; and the leader who will dominate Iraq's political and religious/moral life, Ayatollah Sistani, is rarely if ever seen in public. In its commendable zest to bring democracy to the Arabs, the United States is giving us the world's first virtual vote ? an election of and by people who exist but mostly cannot be touched or seen. Not a great start to bringing the values of the Potomac to the Tigris. As Condoleezza acknowledge, nobody said this was going to be easy. But nobody said either that the symbol of Iraqi democracy would be Casper the Friendly Ghost.

But there is good news also: this election is potentially the most significant step to date on the road back to liberation, sovereignty and normalcy for Iraqis. Even if some things go wrong Sunday, this could be the crucial step ? the tipping point, in currently chic political-speak ? where Iraq starts moving towards credible, normal statehood.

Two keys can help us accurately assess the significance of the Sunday vote. The first is to recognize that this is just one step on a long road of transformation for Iraq, the U.S. and the Middle East, not a defining, all-or-nothing event. In other words, relax. Life will go on Monday morning, with the same basic challenges facing Iraq and the U.S. Someone should tell the American generals in Iraq that the American football Super Bowl is next weekend in Florida, not this weekend in Iraq.

The second is to focus on how the election impacts on a series of core political principles, rather than to get hopelessly sidetracked and lost in the American tendency to count things, like the number of attacks, voters, arrests, raids, schools repainted, and troops trained (though the tabulation-happy United States peculiarly does not count the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died and been injured since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq). The following key political principles will determine if the election is another American-engineered farce, or a meaningful stage in building a new, democratic governance system in Iraq:

1. Will it result in a legitimate, indigenously-chosen Iraqi government, as opposed to the non-credible, foreign-appointed interim authorities since April 2003? If most Iraqis see the elected parliament and the new cabinet as legitimate governing authorities, this would finally spur faster economic development and more effective security forces that can slowly restore a sense of safety and normalcy to everyday life.

2. Will the newly elected parliament promulgate a credible constitutional power-sharing formula for national governance that is agreed by all major segments of the citizenry? Compromise transitional governance formulas cobbled together to date have consistently left one or more of the major demographic groups in Iraq quietly grumbling with worried dissatisfaction, formally demanding veto authority, threatening to abstain or secede, or even directly challenging the American occupation authority.

3. Will the election provide Iraqis with sufficient political legitimacy and security for them to work with the U.S. on a clear, realistic schedule for the departure of American troops (sorry, the other foreign troops are meaningless decoration)? As long as American troops stay in Iraq, the governing authority in Baghdad will always be seen as a puppet that is installed, protected and manipulated by Washington.

It will be clear soon after the election if most Iraqis view the new parliament and government as legitimate, according to the key criteria of liberating the country from foreign military management and forging a sensible power-sharing governance system that responds to all Iraqis' aspirations and identities.

The likelihood is that some, but not all, elements of this best scenario will happen, making this election an incremental but crucial step forward in a slow transition to an Iraq that is peaceful, democratic and -- most importantly -- liberated and sovereign.

© 2005 Rami G. Khouri